Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Stephan Huller wrote:
Stupid logic which falls flat on its face. Next ...
From the perspective of a Marcionite, perhaps.

No it's just filled with disprovable assumptions. Poor scholarship.

Stephan Huller wrote:

Stephan Huller wrote:
Stupid logic which falls flat on its face. Next ...
From the perspective of a Marcionite, perhaps.

No it's just filled with disprovable assumptions. Poor scholarship.

If that were true, you'd have actually cited evidence in your response.

I just spend 15 posts explaining it. You just want to believe what you want to believe.

Stephan Huller wrote:The use of Apostolikon in Irenaeus:

Such, then, is the account which they all give of their Pleroma, and of the formation of the universe, striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to their own wicked inventions. And it is not only from the Evangelic and the Apostolic (τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ὰποστολικών) that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. And others of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a stedfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. [Against Heresies 1.3.6]

No commentator doubts that this is a reference to a formal collection of writings. This would certainly argue for the existence of these two divisions within heretical communities outside of the Catholic tradition but also that this division existed within the Church itself.

The Latin version of Irenaeus's text has "evangelicis et apostolicis" in the place of τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ὰποστολικών. Tertullian seems to indicate the two fold division of the New Testament was also so called in the Catholic tradition:

Let us see what it (the Roman Church) has learned, what it has taught, and what fellowship it has likewise had with the African Churches. It acknowledges one God the Lord, the creator of the universe, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God the creator, born of the Virgin Mary, as well as the resurrection of the flesh. It unites the Law and the Prophets with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles (cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet). From these it draws its faith, and by their authority it seals this faith with water, clothes it with the Holy Spirit, feeds it with the eucharist, and encourages martyrdom. Hence it receives no one who rejects this institution. [Prescription 36]

It would seem that the terminology was pre-existent and that Irenaeus (and later Tertullian) argued that these two works should be joined with the Law and Prophets. If this was the division of the Marcionite New Testament 'the Evangelic' was comprised of the two gospels (a shorter and longer gospel) mentioned repeatedly in the literature.

Interesting stuff ... it kind of suggests that prior to the "New Testament" there was a two-book "Euangelion and Apostolikon" used by all Christians, not just Marcionites. This division would also explain why the apostles are not credited with authorship of the gospels -- their role in the scriptures was conceived of as authors of epistles. Once the Marcionites started this innovation with Paul, the Catholics followed with letters from their guys.

Exactly. At least someone bothers to read the posts here whether or not they fit into pre-conceived 'categories.' Thank you.

I think the controversy may have come down to the use of 'gospelic' (for lack of a better word) and 'evangelic' in the singular or the plural. In other words, the Catholics would say 'gospelic' in the plural the Marcionites in the singular. But did the term 'apostolic' - used to describe the canon of writings associated with the apostle - appear in both communities as 'apostolic' in the plural or was it singular in the heretical communities? And what exactly was 'apostolic' describing?

The Catholics used 'gospelic' and 'apostolic' to describe the character of the writings - but what did that mean exactly for the Marcionites as Paul wrote both the 'gospelic' (sing.) and 'evangelic'? Another example. Apparently 'apostolic' was a type of song sung when someone was leaving (because the root of apostle means that in Greek) - i.e. a send off song. Could the terms have taken on that meaning in the heretical tradition (i.e. not associated with different individuals viz. 'evangelists' and 'apostles' or 'apostle' but the activity associated with each collection of writings? I don't know.

Here is a stupid idea. Could evangelic and apostolic have something to do with 'coming' and 'going' in the original canon?

The adjective ἀποστολικός is normally understood to mean something like 'accordance with the apostles, or historically connected to the apostles. In this latter sense it is especially applied to churches founded directly by apostles, or to persons associated with and taught by apostles. Yet for the Marcionites we are certain there was only one Apostle and he also wrote the evangelion. The puzzling thing is that the two parts of the Marcionite New Testament canon - and indeed likely all early Christian canons - were the Evangelikon (the 'evangelic') and the Apostolikon (the 'apostolic'). In what sense was the gospel 'evangelic' and the apostolic letters 'apostolic'?

With respect to the gospel its 'evangelic' nature is quite obvious. It is the good news that he announced when he came to earth so the narrative takes on the quality of being 'evangelic.' We can see Philo use the verb εὐαγγελίζομαι - to bring glad tidings - throughout his writings. For instance the rising of the seven stars of the Pleiades are said to 'bring glad tidings' of the harvest (Opif Mundi 115). The drowning of the Egyptians in the sea is said by Philo to 'bring glad tidings' in three ways to the ancient Israelites (Somn 2.281). The 'good news' of discovering that Joseph is not dead is twice so described (Ios 245, 250).

But what exactly does 'apostolic' mean? Our first instinct is to identify ἀποστολικός or ὰποστολικών to mean ‘of one apostle,' ‘of the apostle’, ‘of the apostles.’ But the Marcionite division of the New Testament would deny that understanding. After all, both the gospel and the letters derive from the same individual and this one individual was the one and only 'apostle.'

Peter van Deun has actually published an article on the range of uses for the term. He notes that ἀποστολικός indeed has a previous history in pagan literature. The use of the word is very rare in pagan texts (about 5 passages) and all these record date from late antiquity; we find the oldest pagan example in the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus, an author who worked in the early third century CE, and this is — as he demonstrates — younger than the oldest Christian records. He also points out that the pagan ἀποστολικός is used in a very specific literary meaning: it is a kind of song (i.e. μέλη), sung upon the departure of a diplomatic delegation or written by someone abroad who sent his poem afterwards.

Could we have stumbled on the Marcionite context for dividing the New Testament into 'evangelic' and 'apostolic? If - as Paul says 'Christ speaks in me' there is good evidence to show that Paul took on Jesus in himself. Perhaps it was argued that the second coming already occurred. So the 'apostolic' represents his (i.e. Jesus) departure now in Paul, in the same way the 'evangelic' represented his arrival as the heavenly sky man.

Note this from Liddell:

ἀποστολ-ικός , ή, όν,
A.sung on departure, “μέλη” Procl. ap. Phot.p.322B.

To put it in the simplest terms possible - 'the evangelic' portion of the NT = the hello, 'the apostolic' portion of the NT = the goodbye, presumably of the same heavenly being.

Stephan Huller wrote:I just spend 15 posts explaining it. You just want to believe what you want to believe.

Did a great job to. Even a dumb ass like me understood it.

Bernard Muller wrote:to Neil,

This is a very common argument but the problem I've always had with it is that once Mark 13 was presumably found to be false then why was it not redacted to explain away the failure? Why was the supposedly failed prophecy then repeated by Matthew and Luke? Why was the embarrassing prophecy not re-written or removed altogether?
The implications of those questions make even less sense to me.

"Luke" did not say the "second coming" will happen soon after the fall of Jerusalem.
"Matthew" ditto. He predicted that "second coming" will happen soon, but relative to the end of distress among the Jews, not the fall of Jerusalem. According to Josephus' Antiquities (93), under the Pharisees turning into rabbis, Judaism was reformed and the distress, caused by the fall of the temple, had disappeared.
So both corrected Mark's failed prophecy.
"John" did not say anything about the fall of Jerusalem. That's another way to correct gMark.

Cordially, Bernard

So then you open the question why Mark 13 was preserved in tact and included in the canon.

Luke did say that that generation would see the heavens shaken and the son of man coming and it would happen "at that time" (21:27). Matthew was even stronger and said it would happen "immediately" after the tribulation and be seen by the generation of Jesus' day.

I suppose we can ignore the context and play games with the meaning of "generation" as apologists do and that Jesus was addressing the disciples as symbolic of a future generation.

The context tells us plainly that the distress of the Jews is the war itself.

I thought you liked the plain readings of the texts.

As for turning to Josephus, all you are doing is confirming of all three evangelists had failed soon after the fall of war. So how did these chapters get a foothold in the canon uncorrected?

To be honest, I am a little proud of 'the hello and goodbye' idea but pride before a fall I guess. Maybe someone will point out I am wrong. So be it.