The Ultimate Proof that the Letter to the Corinthians was Originaly Named ''to the Alexandrians'

I have been working on various lines of proof for this assertion. The original logic goes something like this. The Muratorian Canon cites the existence of two Marcionite epistles which are not found in our canon - 'to the Laodiceans' and 'to the Alexandrians.' All scholars accept the idea that the Marcionites identified the material in our 'to the Ephesians' as their 'to the Laodiceans.' As such such, it would stand to reason that one of the six remaining canonical epistles would have been renamed 'to the Alexandrians.'

I have settled on 'to the Corinthians' for a number of reasons. Yet here is another (minor) proof that the names 'Corinth' and 'Alexandria' were in some form 'interchangeable.' I was reading at Roger Pearse's site about C H Turner's article in the Journal of Theological Studies on Origen's Commentary on to the Corinthians (which I simply must get):

Certain it is that these commentaries [on Ephesians and 1 Corinthians] contain many interesting things which appear so far to have escaped the notice of Church historians ... information about Ophites (on xii 3), about Montanists (on xiv 34), about heretics who used the Creed (on xv 20), about parts of the Old Testament unsuitable for Church lessons (on xiv 7, 8), about a Pauline citation found in Aquila and the other interpreters but not in the LXX text (on xiv 21 ), about Apollos being bishop of Corinth (on xvi 12).

I have just discovered that Jerome reports on this tradition that Apollos was bishop of Corinth also (undoubtedly through Origen). I will come back to this later.

The line in question is "Now about our brother Apollos: I strongly urged him to go to you with the brothers. He was quite unwilling to go now, but he will go when he has the opportunity." IT must be said that Marcionites did not accept this part of Corinthians. Nevertheless Apollos appears earlier in the text. First in the very introduction:

What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." [1 Cor 1:12]

And again in chapter three in this 'church unity' theme:

You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building ... All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. [1 Cor 3:3 - 5, 22,23]

And again in Chapter Four:

Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. [ibid 4:6]

Now it would stand to reason that the Marcionites would have retained at least some of this 'Apollos' narrative. How much is anyone's guess. The Marcionite text of Corinthians - if it was indeed called 'to the Alexandrians' would have preserved the earliest version of the material, and by implication, Apollos as a presbyter of some importance in the church of Alexandria.

Isn't it interesting then that at some point AFTER the original Marcionite canon was established the Acts of the Apostles goes out of its way to connect this Apollos of Alexandria (clearly identified as such in the text) as being 'moved' to Corinth:

Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. [Acts 18:24 - 19:1]

The point is that once you EVEN CONSIDER the possibility that the Marcionite canon identified 'to the Corinthians' as 'to the Alexandrians' you can IMMEDIATELY see through the methodology of the author of Acts.

He is going out of his way to justify the idea that Apollos COULD HAVE BEEN associated with Corinth to converts from the original orthodoxy - the Marcionite or some related tradition - that originally identified Apollos and the text as being associated with Alexandria.

I can't believe I never saw that before. Yet this is the key to understanding anything. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. Ideas only seem to be 'self-evident' because we don't have the context to see it any other way. That is why it is so important to ask questions - even stupid questions - as in some cases walls that seemed to established on the firmest of foundations can actually move out of the way to reveal hidden passages and secret chambers like a Scooby Doo cartoon.

And then you just stand there and wonder, how many other discoveries are there just lying around which will complete our revaluation of all values? Well, let's just stop to enjoy this one for the moment. I am now CERTAIN that 'to the Corinthians' was called 'to the Alexandrians.'

One more thing. The Alexandrian story about Apollos going from Alexandria to be bishop of Corinth is not only witnessed by Origen and Jerome but also Didymus the Blind who notes that "Apollos was the bishop of Corinth but had left the church on account of its divisions and gone to be with Paul. He would not go back with the letter because he did not want to return until the divisions were healed." (Pauline Commentary on the Greek Church NTA 15:12-13) The tradition of Jerome adds that Apollos eventually left Corinth too to retire in Crete. This is drawn from the Pseudo-Pauline Epistle to Titus and I think that ALL of this was deliberately planted to develop a portrait of Apollos as a kind of 'rolling stone.'

For those who understood Apollos to be a figure of some importance at Alexandria again, Acts provides the framework for how he became associated with Corinth just as Titus demonstrates that he was in the habit of moving around and not staying in one place.

I think it is done. I have enough material for an article especially I comb through the contents of the epistle itself to find 'Alexandrianisms.' I think a second look at 3 Corinthians might be useful too (which Ephrem and the Syrian Church took to be canonical). Nevertheless I think I have accomplished the impossible and begun the final reconciliation between the Marcionites, the Marcosians and the original See of St. Mark.

Exciting stuff, don't you think?