Explaining the Term 'Apostolic'

[Secret Alias]

This thought occurred to me today when I was looking at Eusebius's Church History. I think I figured out an important aspect of the creation of the gospel in four.

1. before Irenaeus the Marcionite gospel was described as 'apostolic' because it was written by the apostle (= Paul)
2. this pre-existent term apostolic was used in conjunction with the gospel - a gospel without the ascription 'according to X' in this case Paul or whomever the apostle was identified as - in the sense of 'belonging to' or 'of the apostle' - viz. 'the apostle's gospel so it's apostolic'.
3. Irenaeus recasts the terminology 'apostolic' to mean a different class of person.
4. Now Mark is an 'apostolic' because he was a hearer of an apostle (Peter).
5. similarly the original 'apostolic' gospel is recast as getting its name because it was written by Luke, a hitherto unknown hearer of Paul

I always thought the story ended here (i.e. that Mark was the first gospel, that Mark in its original form was the Marcionite gospel and that two subordinate gospels, two 'apostolic' gospels were fabricated to skirt the challenge that the Marcionite 'gospel written by the apostle' (i.e. the original sense of 'apostolic' posed for Christianity.

6. but then I noticed in Irenaeus's testimony (now preserved in Eusebius) Polycarp is also an 'apostolic.' He is called ὁ μακάριος καὶ ἀποστολικὸς πρεσβύτερος.
7. it is important to note that from this same testimony C K Barrett notes that Irenaeus, despite having the opportunity to do so, does not say that Polycarp said that John wrote the gospel ascribed to him:

Here it is most important to notice exactly what statement Irenaeus ascribes to Poly- carp, and it is noteworthy that, although Irenaeus himself sincerely believed that the apostle John had written the Fourth Gospel, he did not make Polycarp say so. In the Epistle to Florinus Polycarp is made to speak of 'his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord.' When he adds: 'And as he remembered their words, and what he had heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eye-witnesses of the "Word of Life", Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures', Irenaeus does nothing to suggest that Polycarp possessed a gospel written by the John he mentions.

8. Yet we can turn around Barrett's argument for the possibility that Polycarp 'the apostolic' wrote the Gospel of John.
9. MacArthur for instance notes Irenaeus " testified on Polycarp's authority that John wrote the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." But what is actually written there? "Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel
(καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ­έδωκεν τὸ εὐαγγέ­λιον/et ipse edidit Evan­gelium) during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." Is 'publishing' a gospel the same thing as writing it?
10 I think there is a strong possibility that John merely dictated or 'gave out' the gospel (Εκδιδωμι, from εκ out, and διδωμι to give.) and Polycarp was his secretary. There is a long history with respect to the question of who was John's secretary.

Liddell ἐκδίδωμι , 3sg.
A.“ἐκδιδοῖ” Hdt.1.80,al.:—give up, esp.somethingseized and detained unlawfully, “Ἑλένην καὶ κτήμαθ᾽ ἅμ᾽ αὐτῇ” Il.3.459, cf. Hdt.1.3: generally, surrender, esp. of giving up refugees, ib.74,158 sq.; “τινὰ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς” S.Ph.1386, cf. OT1040, etc.; “ἐ. τινὰ τοῖς κατηγόροις” D.21.30, cf. 29.38; ἐ. δοῦλον give up a slave to be examined by torture, Antipho 6.27, D.29.14; “αὐτὸν ἐξέδωκεν μαστιγῶσαι Εὐριπίδῃ” Arist.Pol.1311b32; “αὑτὸν ἐς τιμωρίαν τοῖς δικασταῖς” Polyaen.6.7.1; surrender a city, “Ἀμφίπολιν” D.19.253, cf. 257:—Med., θυμὸν ἐκδόσθαι πρὸς ἥβαν give up one's heart to jollity, Pi.P.4.295.
2. give out of one's house,
a. ἐ. θυγατέρα give one's daughter in marriage, “τινί” Hdt.1.196, E.IA132 (anap.), cf. Thphr.Char.22.4; θυγατέρας παρὰ σφῶν αὐτῶν ἐκδόντες having provided for their marriage at their own expense, D.27.69; “Ἄλκηστιν ἐ. πρὸς γάμον” D.S.4.53; freq. also without any acc., give in marriage, “ἐ. εἰς οὒς ἂν ἐθέλωσι” Pl.R.613d, cf. 362b, Th.8.21, etc.: metaph., of the elements, “συνοικίζειν καὶ ἐ.” Pl. Sph.242d:—less freq. in Med., “ἐκδίδοσθαι θυγατέρα” Hdt.2.47, Thphr. Char.30.19; “ἐξέδου κόρην ὅτῳ σε θυμὸς ἦγεν” E.Med.309:—Pass., Arc. ἐσδοθένσᾳ ( = ἐκδοθείσῃ) given in marriage, SIG306.7 (Tegea, iv B.C.).
b. give one's son for adoption, τοὺς μὲν (sc. υἱοὺς) “εἰς ἑτέρας οἰκίας” Plb.31.28.2, cf. POxy.1206.6 (iv A. D.); also ἐ. τὸν παῖδα ἐπὶ τέχνην put him out as an apprentice, X.Eq.2.2, cf. BGU1021.6, etc.
3. farm out, let for hire, “τὴν αὐλήν” Hdt.1.68, cf. SIG1044.29 (Halic., iv/iii B. C.), etc.; ἐ. ἀνδράποδα to let out slaves for work, X. Vect.4.15; “πῶλον” Id.Eq.2.2 (also in Med., ἐξέδοτο [ἀμπελῶνα] “γεωργοῖς” Ev.Marc.12.1): c. inf., “χαλινὸν χαλκεῖ ἐ. σκευάσαι” Pl.Prm.127a; ἐ. [θύλακον] “τῷ σκυτοδέψῃ ἐπιρράψαι” Thphr.Char.16.6; ὅταν ἐκδῷ θοἰμάτιον ἐκπλῦναι ib.22.8 ; ἐκδόντος μοι Δημοσθένους..στέφανον χρυσοῦν ὥστε κατασκευάσαι Test. ap. D.21.22; ὥσπερ ἀνδριάντ᾽ ἐκδεδωκὼς κατὰ συγγραφήν like one who has contracted for the execution of a statue, D.18.122.
4. give in charge to another, πολλοὺς ἐξέδωκα Προδίκῳ (with play on signf. 2) Pl.Tht.151b; ἐκδιδοὺς νεικέων so as to be out of the way of quarrels, E.Ba.293 (s.v.l.): c. inf., “Δὶ τοῦτ᾽..ἐκδώσομεν πράσσειν” Pi.O.13.106.
5. bring out, “ἀλλ᾽ ἐκδότω τις..δᾷδας” Ar.Pl.1194; “ἐκδότω δέ τις..δίφρω δύο” Id.Fr.348.
6. lend out money on security, etc., Lexap.D.35.51; “ναυτικὰ ἐκδεδομένα” Lys.32.6.
b. simply, pay out, Arist.Oec.1349b31, PSI3.204(ii A. D.).
7. put out, publish, of books, etc., chiefly in Pass., “λόγος ὁ πρότερον ἐκδοθείς” Isoc.5.11, cf.Plb.2.37.6, Str.1.2.2; “τοῖς ἐκδεδομένοις λόγοις” Arist. Po.1454b18:—in Act., Plu.Rom.8.
8. of a woman, bring to the birth, App.BC1.83.
9. of land, etc., return, yield, produce, “μέταλλα.. μονολίθους ἐκδιδόντα πλάκας” Str.5.2.5.
10. hand over, deliver a document, “ἀποχήν” BGU260.6 (i A. D.), etc.:—Med., PFlor.384.113 (V A. D.).
11. betray, Hsch.
II. intr., of rivers, empty themselves, disembogue, ἐς θάλασσαν, ἐς τὴν Σύρτιν, ἐς τὸν Μαίανδρον, etc., Hdt.1.80, 2.150, 7.26, etc.
2. τῶν ἄλλων [ζῴων] τὰ μὲν εἰς ὀδόντας ἐκδίδωσι..τὰ δὲ εἰς κέρατα.. run to teeth, etc., Arist.Pr.898a22; find an outlet, εἰς κεφαλήν ib.29.
3. emerge, “τὴν Ἀφροδίτην ἐκδοῦναι τῆς θαλάσσης” Philostr.Im.2.1 (leg. -δῦναι).

11. If indeed then Polycarp was 'apostolic' in the sense of John's assistant perhaps to the point of writing down his gospel, we see an uncanny pattern emerge with respect to the canonical gospels - viz. the Marcionite understanding that none of the apostles, none of the disciples of Jesus authored gospels might have been an unconscious 'red line' that Irenaeus was reluctant to cross because of the authority of Marcionism even as he was developing his new Christianity.

[Secret Alias]

It is interesting to further note:

1. with Mark, it is simply assumed that as 'interpreter' (whatever that means) Mark ended up producing Peter's gospel.
2. with Luke, Irenaeus needs to convince his audience that Paul had an 'apostolic' - this is the reason he spends chapters arguing that Luke even existed. On some level it must have been recognized that 'apostolic' didn't mean what Irenaeus claimed it to mean. The Marcionites used 'apostolic' and the apostlic gospel in the sense that it was 'of the apostle.'
3. with Polycarp - if my interpretation is correct - Irenaeus avoids the specific mention of Polycarp's authorship or 'interpreting' of John owing to the recentness of Polycarp. But the sense is still the same. Polycarp wrote the gospel of John.
4. in Matthew's case there is a strange effort to 'make' Matthew a disciple (cf. the Levi/Matthew confusion). Isn't Matthew = Matthias of Acts 1? Was Matthias necessarily an eyewitness? The Marcionites clearly did not think Mathew was an apostle or an eyewitness. I think somewhere in one of the Nag Hammadi documents there is a tradition that someone helped write Matthew. Have to dig that up.

[Ben C. Smith]

Yet we can turn around Barrett's argument for the possibility that Polycarp 'the apostolic' wrote the Gospel of John.

A proposition I find appealing in some ways, but I have also seen Polycarp suggested as the author of Acts. That he should be personally responsible both for Acts and for John seems highly unlikely. But I am not sure how strong a speculation Acts is compared to John.

MacArthur for instance notes Irenaeus " testified on Polycarp's authority that John wrote the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." But what is actually written there? "Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel
(καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ­έδωκεν τὸ εὐαγγέ­λιον/et ipse edidit Evan­gelium) during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." Is 'publishing' a gospel the same thing as writing it?

That famous paragraph by Galen about his own books uses this same word, asserting that his notes were "not for publication" (οὐδὲν πρὸς ἔκδοσιν).

If indeed then Polycarp was 'apostolic' in the sense of John's assistant perhaps to the point of writing down his gospel, we see an uncanny pattern emerge with respect to the canonical gospels - viz. the Marcionite understanding that none of the apostles, none of the disciples of Jesus authored gospels might have been an unconscious 'red line' that Irenaeus was reluctant to cross because of the authority of Marcionism even as he was developing his new Christianity.

Well, except Matthew, right?? Irenaeus considered him an apostle.

[Secret Alias]

See above. Matthew is a problem. There does appear to be an effort to put 'Matthew' into the gospel in Levi's place. But yes, you're right. Still interesting pattern.

[Ben C. Smith]

See above. Matthew is a problem. There does appear to be an effort to put 'Matthew' into the gospel in Levi's place. But yes, you're right. Still interesting pattern.

Yeesh, my posts have been crossing a lot with other people's lately....

In Matthew's case there is a strange effort to 'make' Matthew a disciple (cf. the Levi/Matthew confusion). Isn't Matthew = Matthias of Acts 1? Was Matthias necessarily an eyewitness?

My own tentative answers: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3814, are yes, Matthew = Matthias, and no, neither Matthew nor Matthias were necessarily eyewitnesses; they had to be made eyewitnesses because they were the fountainhead of several important veins of Christian tradition.

I think somewhere in one of the Nag Hammadi documents there is a tradition that someone helped write Matthew. Have to dig that up.

I would like to see that. I do not recall any tradition of the gospel of Matthew being coauthored. The closest I can think of is that the book of Thomas the Contender opens with the following: "The secret words that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas which I, even I, Mathaias, wrote down, while I was walking, listening to them speak with one another," with Matthias serving as amanuensis for Thomas.