Prologues to the Apostolikon

[Blood]

These have been discussed briefly before, but have not had a thread devoted to them. Are they actually Marcionite? The strongest argument for that is the Colossians prologue which states "Colossians also, like the Laodiceans, are of Asia." But these prologues do not exist in any early Greek text and are not referred to by the anti-Marcionites or any other early church father apparently.

These translations of the prologues are taken from Jason BeDuhn's The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon (2013). I did not see an explanation of why he translates "apostolus" as "emissary."


1. Galatians
Galatians are Greeks. They accepted the true teaching first from the Emissary, but after his departure were tempted by false emissaries to turn to the Law and to circumcision. The Emissary recalls these people to the trust of truth, writing to them from Ephesus.

2. 1 Corinthians
Corinthians are Achaeans. These also likewise heard the true teaching from the Emissary and were perverted by various false emissaries, some by the wordy eloquence of philosophy, others led on by the sect of the Jewish Law. The Emissary recalls these people to the true and evangelical wisdom, writing to them from Ephesus.

3. 2 Corinthians
(no prologue)

4. Romans
Romans are in the region of Italy. They were reached beforehand by false emissaries and under the name of our Lord Jesus Christos had been led on to the Law and the Prophets. The Emissary recalls these people to the true and evangelical faith, writing to them from Athens.

5. 1 Thessalonians
Thessalonians are Macedonians, who having accepted the true teaching, persevered in the faith even under persecution from their own citizens; moreover, they did not accept what was said by false emissaries. The Emissary congratulates these people, writing to them from Athens.

6. 2 Thessalonians
(no prologue)

7. Laodiceans
Laodiceans are of Asia. They had been reached beforehand by false emissaries, and the Emissary himself does not come to them; but he corrects them by a letter ... writing to them from Ephesus.

8. Colossians
Colossians also, like the Laodiceans, are of Asia. They, too, had been reached beforehand by false emissaries, and the Emissary himself does not come to them; but he corrects them also by a letter. For they had heard his word from Archippus, who also accepted a service to them. So the Emissary, already in bonds, writes to them from Ephesus.

9. Philippians
Philippians are Macedonians. These, having accepted the true teaching, persevered in the faith, and they did not receive false emissaries. The Emissary congratulates these people, writing to them from prison at Rome by Epaphroditus.

10. Philemon
To Philemon he composes a private letter by Onesimus, his slave. He writes to him from Rome out of prison.

[Stephan Huller]

I don't believe they are Marcionite. Here is my dilemma about this part of the canon. I hope this doesn't distract too much from your discussion.

1. Tertullian and Epiphanius likely go back to an original source which they each used selectively.
2. Tertullian implicitly and Epiphanius explicitly assume that the Marcionite canon began with Galatians.
3. Yet is this a result of the source (= a source whose 'Apostle' section began with Galatians) rather than the Marcionite canon began with Galatians i.e. the same problem exists in Origen's attack against Celsus (viz is the ordering of material in Contra Celsum reflective of Origen's interest in the treatise or does Origen follow the order of Celsus throughout).

Ephrem and various other eastern witnesses demonstrate that a Galatians first canon circulated among the Orthodox. Is this because the Diatessaron-using communities shared a similar Apostle section (I hate 'Apostolikon' it is an unnecessary abstraction resulting from an over-reliance on De Recta in Deum Fide where the term originates) or was a reconstituted Galatians with its heavy emphasis on 'history' (and thus introducing Paul in his particular Catholic manifestation to the Catholic world) place first to re-present the apostle in his Catholic guise (alongside deliberate heavy overlap with the Acts meeting in Antioch between Paul and Peter)?

The fact that Laodiceans is referenced is not decisive IMO as the epistle is anonymous in most codices. The identity of the text may have circulated in the East with this name. What about the Epistle to the Alexandrians? Why isn't this mentioned in the prologues? Not convinced it is Marcionite.

[Stephan Huller]

It is interesting there is no 2 Corinthians prologue.

[DCHindley]

These translations of the prologues are taken from Jason BeDuhn's The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon (2013). I did not see an explanation of why he translates "apostolus" as "emissary."

That is one of the English glosses for that Greek word. Apostle is just a transliteration of apostolos (ἀπόστολος), which has the basic meaning "emissary," usually traveling abroad on some sort of private or public business. Another term I've seen used (by Hugh Schonfield, The Authentic New Testament) is "Envoy."

One lexicon (Gingrich & Arndt) defines it as "delegate, envoy, messenger." Liddell Scott Jones gives a primary definition of "messenger, ambassador, envoy" and notes that it is derived from stolos (στόλος), naval squadron or expedition.

So, he is simply being true to the meaning, and is trying to avoid associations that have Christian roots.

DCH

[Stephan Huller]

FWIW the '-ikos' suffix is the equivalent (or the predecessor) of our "-ic." So Apostolikon means 'Apostolic' and Euaggelikon (= 'Evangelic'). I think they denote two sections of the canon but the titles of each section were different. The term 'apostolos' is used to describe the Pauline letters in Epiphanius and elsewhere I believe. Irenaeus somewhere refers to the 'Apostolikwn' and 'Euaggelikwn' of the heretics too (somewhere in Book 1).

Here it is:

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]

[Blood]

These translations of the prologues are taken from Jason BeDuhn's The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon (2013). I did not see an explanation of why he translates "apostolus" as "emissary."

That is one of the English glosses for that Greek word. Apostle is just a transliteration of apostolos (ἀπόστολος), which has the basic meaning "emissary," usually traveling abroad on some sort of private or public business. Another term I've seen used (by Hugh Schonfield, The Authentic New Testament) is "Envoy."

One lexicon (Gingrich & Arndt) defines it as "delegate, envoy, messenger." Liddell Scott Jones gives a primary definition of "messenger, ambassador, envoy" and notes that it is derived from stolos (στόλος), naval squadron or expedition.

So, he is simply being true to the meaning, and is trying to avoid associations that have Christian roots.

DCH

It's kind of strange because the book was supposedly called "The Apostolikon."

[Stephan Huller]

No the book wasn't 'called' the Apostolikon. It was 'described' as being 'Apostolic.' An example of the adjective from Eusebius:

These things he wrote from the above-mentioned city to the churches referred to. And when he had left Smyrna he wrote again from Troas to the Philadelphians and to the church of Smyrna; and particularly to Polycarp, who presided over the latter church. And since he knew him well as an apostolic (ὰποστολικὸν) man, he commended to him, like a true and good shepherd, the flock at Antioch, and besought him to care diligently for it.

The author was the apostle. The writings were 'apostolic' whatever that meant (probably 'pertaining to the Apostle'). But it was descriptive not the title of the work.

[Ulan]

I did not see an explanation of why he translates "apostolus" as "emissary."

He is an advocate of translating terms in their basic meaning if you are not sure they have a specific one. And the term "apostle" has different meanings, depending on who used it.

Edit: or read above. That's what you get for answering before reading the whole topic.

[Blood]

I haven't read the whole book yet, but so far I haven't seen where BeDuhn questions the title "Apostolikon." Does he?

[DCHindley]

It's kind of strange because the book was supposedly called "The Apostolikon."

Well, to Marcion, Paul (who calls himself an "apostle" in the greetings of the letter to the Galatians) was the ultimate apostle, sent on his mission by Christ himself. So, the collection of his letters gets the nickname "the (letters) of the apostle (Paul)." He liked to be general.

Similarly, his written account of Jesus' life is "the Gospel" ("good news"). He never says who he thinks wrote the version of the written gospel he adopted, but it is generally similar to canonical Luke, although he apparently was aware of a written gospel much like Matthew (I think without naming it, but I am probably wrong). However, the written accounts of Jesus' life may not have yet been attributed to individuals in his day.

DCH