Talk:Apollos

Apollos the Apostle
In 1 Cor 4:6, 9-13 Paul describes Apollos as an apostle who had shared the privations of the traveling apostolic life. Apollos must have been active in Corinth prior to 55 CE when Paul wrote his letter, as by the time of writing he is back in Ephesus with Paul (1 Cor 16:12). Apollos is also mentioned by Luke in a retrospective account in Acts 18:24-28 detailing Apollos' teaching in the synagogue in Ephesus in about 52/3 CE. He speaks highly of Apollos as an ‘eloquent man’ who had a ‘thorough knowledge of the Scriptures’ and ‘taught about Jesus accurately’ from them (thus using the earliest Christian exegetical method taught by Christ to the apostles post resurrection; Lk 24:27, 32, 44; Acts 1:3; 1 Cor 15:3-8). Acts 18:28 says that Apollos wished to go to Achaia and was sent with letters of recommendation from the elders in Ephesus to Corinth(Acts 18:27). In Corinth he is on a par with other apostles, Peter and Paul.

As an apostle Apollos was certainly driven by a commission to preach the Gospel which would accord with him being amongst the disciples from the time of the baptism of John (Acts 1:22), and would have witnessed everything that had occurred (Lk 1:1-2; 24:33, 48). Paul only thinks of himself as an apostle who was ‘untimely born’ which suggests that he thought Apollos became an apostle in the regular way. Apollos also seemed to be preaching throughout the world, appearing in Ephesus again later (1 Cor 16:12), and even later in Crete with Zenas, the lawyer (Tit 3:13).

Luke says that Priscilla and Aquila heard something in Apollos’ preaching at the synagogue in Ephesus that they wished to clarify (Acts 18:26), so they took him aside and enhanced his already ‘accurate’ understanding of Jesus with a ‘more accurate’ understanding. The comparative, as an elative ἀκριβέστερον is used adverbially here, as it is in Acts 26:5 to describe ‘the straightest sect’ or most precise and rigorous faction in interpreting Mosaic law cf. Acts 23:15, 20; 24:22)and the same idea of minute attention to detail is conveyed by other derivates of ἀκριβής as noun in Acts 22:3, as superlative adjective in Acts 26:5, and as verb in Matthew 2:7, 16).

Their exposition (Gk. ἐκτιθημι) probably had something to do with the baptism of John and the need for Apollos to more powerfully refute from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah, for that is the difference in Apollos’ teaching post their instruction (Lk 24:27, 32, 44; Acts 1:3; 18:25, 28). Priscilla and Aquila also expounded to him from ‘the way of God’ (Acts 18:26) which is likely a variant oral/textual tradition to that held by Apollos called ‘The way of the Lord,’ (Acts 18:25) which only knew of the baptism of John. Derivatives of ἐκτιθημι give the sense of this word when it is used in relation to Peter’s and Paul’s teaching in Acts 11:4 and 28:23. In the case of Paul, ‘he witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining (ἐκτιθημι) about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus.’

In sum, Priscilla and Aquila expound (ἐκτιθημι) to an apostle named Apollos (these 3 are also "co-workers" with Paul) a very accurate Christian understanding which Apollos used in Corinth to powerfully refute from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. This must be weighed against Paul’s once only prohibition of ‘a (singular) woman’ teaching ‘a (singular) man’ in 1 Tim 2:12. Certainly ἐκτιθημι and other words that describe persuasion, refuting, proving, etc are more powerful than "teach" (didasko) in the contexts where they appear together (Acts 18:25-28; Acts 28:23-31). Also when ἐκτιθημι is used of Paul it is an expounding that runs from morning till night where some are persuaded and others are not.

Priscilla therefore taught an apostle.

N.B. Commentators that think Apollos is an apostle are: E. Earle Ellis, ‘Paul and His Co-Workers,’ New Testament Studies 17 (October–July 1970–71), pp. 437-452 (439); F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 103 and 106 refers to Paul and Apollos as apostles and states this is the general use of the word; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 174 states that Paul definitely includes Apollos and Peter in the apostles mentioned in 4:9; William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, 1 Corinthians, AB 32 (New York: Doubleday, 1976), p. 178 say that Paul includes Apollos in the description of apostles; and David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), p. 132 comments that the problem in Corinth was competing loyalties towards the apostolic leaders Paul, Apollos, and Peter. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 140, 296, and 306 does not directly address the issue of whether Apollos was an apostle, but he does not hesitate to quote other authors who call him one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollos123 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 November 2011

Due to recent blanking, to avoid any doubt, I have readded but collapsed the above text which appeared to be a draft for the article. --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"...Priscilla therefore taught an apostle..."
Summary Content seems heavily biased and off topic. Jwberean (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Major Point of Dispute: The entire section entitled "Apostle" seems to be heavily biased and belongs either here on the talk page to be used as discussion or rephrased and placed in footnotes, or more to the point - on a page about Priscilla and Aquilla. Whether "Priscilla therefore taught an apostle." is not really relevant on an article about Apollos except in a cursory comment on (again) Priscilla's page...and even then as a "view" - not a fact. The entrie section entitled "Apostle" seems to be geared toward establishing the legacy of Priscilla, not revealing information about Apollos. In short, this yeilds very little understanding about Apollos and because of the bias, leaves the reader to believe this is a fact, when it is merely the opinion of one of the contributors. Jwberean (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: The Apostle section does not seem to be about Apollos at all, it doesnt even appear to phrased in such a way to be supporting information about Apollos...but instead about Priscilla. Move the information to the Priscilla and Aquila page, re-write removing or acknowledging the bias theological statements. Jwberean (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * NOTE   The entire APOSTLE Section is WORD for WORD from the Priscilla and Aquila page.  This is now also redundant.  Ive removed the section as it is already noted in the link above.  There is some relevant information in the section, and am blending the information into the article as no attempt was made by the contributor (Apollos123) to do so, but merely copied and pasted from another page Jwberean (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This entire section was copied without attribution from this article. The article itself is not a WP:RS. It contains no citations, and the final paragraph has been plagiarized from this book. The editor (Apollos123), has posted this entire section on the Priscilla and Aquila page, and also deleted the entire Talk page discussion of their edit, without explanation. They keep re-inserting their 'Apostle' section into the article despite explanations as to why it is inappropriate, and despite requests that they discuss their edits on the Talk page.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Other topics with the same name
There should be a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)