beach24

I have to get back to writing so cannot post again for a while. Anyone who wants to ask a question or provide a comment on this paper please contact me on my email address on this page: http://sydney.edu.au...mansfield.shtml

I will get back to you as soon as I can.

God bless.

I hear your view Fortigurn.

well you are off topic then />

it can be argued either way - it depends whether it was acting as a home or a house church when they taught him. Impossible to determine.

I don't attempt to do this - I say 'aside' means 'aside' - no more no less. One of many theories is to say they took Apollos home.

I don't think the author of 1 Tim is discussing roles, but a local issue. And we have the whole debate about 1 Tim being Deutero-Pauline to contend with as well - that is, if you want to be accepted in any scholarly debate.

any questions or arguments about this paper from anyone else? A guy at Bible.org had issues with Apollos being an apostle based on 1 Cor 4. Any thoughts on that?

Fortigurn, I ended my paper with 'this raises interesting questions about ...' so I'm not sure how you draw the conclusions you draw but they are not from this paper.

The historicity of Acts is a very pertinent issue now, particularly since Pervo wrote his commentary in the 21st century. J. B. Tyson is also relevant to this debate. The Jesus Seminar do not think there is anything historical in Acts and they formed this opinion in the 21st century. I have been to the seminar to hear about it.

The church met in Priscilla and Aquila's house - therefore *if* they took him home (which I do not think they did) they taught him in the house church, which was the public place where the church met, was it not? It could therefore be argued they taught him in this public space. But in my view, this argument is anachronistic, that is, retrojecting modern ideas (how church is conducted now in terms of public speaking) onto ancient texts.

Luke is not commentating on the space where Apollos was taught. Just as the author of 1 Tim is not discussing space when he says 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man'. Or do you think the word 'public' appears in this passage?

The interesting thing is that 1 Tim says a woman is not to teach ... yet Priscilla and Aquila did just that. It also says 'or to assume authority over a man' ... yet Priscilla and Aquila taught the apostle, Apollos. How fascinating!

It is a good question Fortigurn. Sometimes when I am all over a topic I forget not everyone else is. The thing is that ektithemi was thought to be a term that described a decree (as it does several times in the LXX, particularly in Esther), or the exposure of an infant. This was the basis of Dan Wallace's view that Priscilla and Priscilla were just, in a sense, reciting something to Apollos.

Wallace's view was dispelled by my argument that Priscilla and Aquila taught a precise point of Christian doctrine to Apollos, and that Paul's teaching (Luke also uses ektithemi to describe Paul's teaching) continued from morning till night, where some who heard him were converted and others were not. This did not look like recitation.