Even this example argument points up an interesting issue: tomatoes originate in the New World, nowhere near Naples, Italy. Yet what would a Margherita be without tomato sauce? A thing can be Neapolitan or Italian even if some of its ingredients have been transplanted.Secret Alias wrote:Like arguing that pizza comes from China without accounting for an Asian origin for wheat, yeast, cheese and tomato sauce.
Apelles and the gospel of John.
-
Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Apelles and the gospel of John.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: Apelles and the gospel of John.
- which may be a misrepresentation by those 'Fathers' designed to mislead; to create a false version of historySecret Alias wrote: The Church Fathers repeatedly accused the Marcionites of 'cutting' the scriptures -
- (like dismissing all non-'orthodox' texts & ideas as 'heresies' to misrepresent those texts & ideas (as supposedly having developed outside & subsequent to the supposedly long-standing orthodox texts))
'Cut' texts can be further cut (& then added to in various ways).Secret Alias wrote: ... if the Ignatian epistles are Marcionite, it would stand to reason that the shortest [Ignatian] epistles were the Marcionite layer. The idea that there was an abridgment of the Marcionite 'original' epistles seems anti-intuitive. Marcion is supposed to be the 'cutter.'
But, yes,I can see that -
Secret Alias wrote: Anyone claiming a Marcionite origin to the Ignatian epistles and who ignores the Syriac recension isn't a theory worth considering very seriously.
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18761
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Apelles and the gospel of John.
But to get back on topic how could Parvis argue the texts are Marcionite and pass over the obvious pattern of expansion when Marcionite texts get into the hands of the Catholics (and the same monarchian themes too ie obey the bishop etc) here with respect to the shortest letters. I am not sure the letters are Marcionite. But if they were there is only one way to start that argument
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18761
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Apelles and the gospel of John.
I have actually heard it argued that pizza comes from China.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Re: Apelles and the gospel of John.
The texts could still be Marcionite despite what happened [eslewhere] via the Catholics (??)Secret Alias wrote:... how could Parvis argue the texts are Marcionite and pass over the obvious pattern of expansion when Marcionite texts get into the hands of the Catholics ...
and, You are talking about the Ignatian epistles (?) .. particularly the Syriac 'recensions' (?)
Re: Apelles and the gospel of John.
Here are some of the reasons I suspect a specifically Apellean provenance for the original GJohn:
GJohn is a significantly different from the Synoptic gospels. Apelles — in contrast to Marcion who was accused of for the most part of cutting out parts of a synoptic gospel -- was said to have written a new gospel under the influence of his prophetess associate Philumena. He called his new gospel “the Manifestations.” A title like that seems quite appropriate for a gospel like GJohn with its heavy emphasis on signs that manifest the glory of Jesus (e.g., “This the first of his signs Jesus did at Cana in Galilee and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.” - Jn. 2:11).
And according to Hippolytus, Apelles’ version of the gospel made reference to a side wound of Christ. GJohn, in contrast to the synoptic gospels, mentions a side wound.
And in Jn. 9:2 there is reference to belief in some kind of pre-incarnational state. Now Apelles is said to have taught that souls existed previously and were at some point lured down to this world where they were enclosed in bodies.
GJohn is also missing an ascension scene even though Jn. 6:62 leads the reader to expect one. The absence would be understandable if the scene originally in that gospel was at some point cut out because it was deemed insufficiently orthodox. As far as I know, the only specific ascension scene condemned in the proto-orthodox anti-heretical writings was that of Apelles.
GJohn is mildly gnostic but also anti-docetic. That is an unusual combination. And that gospel propounds its anti-docetism without recourse to a nativity for its Jesus. Now Apelles was a rare bird too. He was gnostic but also strongly anti-docetic. And even though he insisted Jesus had real flesh he was equally emphatic that the flesh in question did not arise from a human birth.
And GJohn, though mildly gnostic, is not ascetic. Its Jesus attends a wedding and provides the wine. Apelles was a gnostic who at some point rejected the asceticism of his former teacher Marcion.
I’ll note too that some scholars have argued that GJohn is Pauline in certain respects. To me this would receive a good explanation if GJohn was originally Apellean. Philumena claimed to receive her revelations via a phantasma who appeared to her and sometimes stated he was Christ, sometimes Paul. From a Johannine perspective the presence of both makes sense, for GJohn requires two witnesses to support a claim: “If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified. But there is another who testifies on my behalf… the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf” (Jn. 5:31 and 37). So it looks as though (as Philumena would have seen it) Christ spoke to her first in order to vouch for Paul who was to be the real source of her revelations. In this way Paul could be the promised Paraclete (and possibly the Beloved Disciple too).
Finally, I find it curious that Irenaeus mentions many heretics by name and describes many heresies in his five volume “Against Heresies” but he manages to never mention Apelles or Philumena, and never condemns any specifically Apellean errors. Irenaeus accepted GJohn. I’m wondering if he knew the Apellean provenance of that Gospel and because of that decided it was best not to mention Apelles or Philumena. .
GJohn is a significantly different from the Synoptic gospels. Apelles — in contrast to Marcion who was accused of for the most part of cutting out parts of a synoptic gospel -- was said to have written a new gospel under the influence of his prophetess associate Philumena. He called his new gospel “the Manifestations.” A title like that seems quite appropriate for a gospel like GJohn with its heavy emphasis on signs that manifest the glory of Jesus (e.g., “This the first of his signs Jesus did at Cana in Galilee and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.” - Jn. 2:11).
And according to Hippolytus, Apelles’ version of the gospel made reference to a side wound of Christ. GJohn, in contrast to the synoptic gospels, mentions a side wound.
And in Jn. 9:2 there is reference to belief in some kind of pre-incarnational state. Now Apelles is said to have taught that souls existed previously and were at some point lured down to this world where they were enclosed in bodies.
GJohn is also missing an ascension scene even though Jn. 6:62 leads the reader to expect one. The absence would be understandable if the scene originally in that gospel was at some point cut out because it was deemed insufficiently orthodox. As far as I know, the only specific ascension scene condemned in the proto-orthodox anti-heretical writings was that of Apelles.
GJohn is mildly gnostic but also anti-docetic. That is an unusual combination. And that gospel propounds its anti-docetism without recourse to a nativity for its Jesus. Now Apelles was a rare bird too. He was gnostic but also strongly anti-docetic. And even though he insisted Jesus had real flesh he was equally emphatic that the flesh in question did not arise from a human birth.
And GJohn, though mildly gnostic, is not ascetic. Its Jesus attends a wedding and provides the wine. Apelles was a gnostic who at some point rejected the asceticism of his former teacher Marcion.
I’ll note too that some scholars have argued that GJohn is Pauline in certain respects. To me this would receive a good explanation if GJohn was originally Apellean. Philumena claimed to receive her revelations via a phantasma who appeared to her and sometimes stated he was Christ, sometimes Paul. From a Johannine perspective the presence of both makes sense, for GJohn requires two witnesses to support a claim: “If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified. But there is another who testifies on my behalf… the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf” (Jn. 5:31 and 37). So it looks as though (as Philumena would have seen it) Christ spoke to her first in order to vouch for Paul who was to be the real source of her revelations. In this way Paul could be the promised Paraclete (and possibly the Beloved Disciple too).
Finally, I find it curious that Irenaeus mentions many heretics by name and describes many heresies in his five volume “Against Heresies” but he manages to never mention Apelles or Philumena, and never condemns any specifically Apellean errors. Irenaeus accepted GJohn. I’m wondering if he knew the Apellean provenance of that Gospel and because of that decided it was best not to mention Apelles or Philumena. .
Re: Apelles and the gospel of John.
Words, words, wordsApelles... was said to have written a new gospel under the influence of his prophetess associate Philumena...
And according to Hippolytus...
Now Apelles is said to have taught...
Now Apelles was a rare bird too...
Philumena claimed to receive her revelations via a phantasma...
I’m wondering if he knew the Apellean provenance of that Gospel and because of that decided it was best not to mention Apelles or Philumena. .
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18761
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Apelles and the gospel of John.
It's nice to have theories. I've developed more than a few. If we take this is as 'an idea' or a theory filled with 'thoughts' 'observations' 'ideas' - sure there is some merit to some of the thoughts, observations, ideas in the most general sense. But as to whether it captures 'reality' - i.e. 'the origin of the Gospel of John'? Nah.
Some obvious problems.
The 'multiple year ministry' business that is inserted into the Gospel of John for instance. That comes from Irenaeus or his tradition. It is obvious from Adv Haer 2. Irenaeus needs Jesus to live to 49. This wasn't likely Apelles's concern and the Marcionites as well as everyone else undoubtedly had a single year ministry for Jesus.
The idea that the temple of Jerusalem is Jesus's father's house. That's not from Apelles.
The identification of Jesus as 'the king of Israel.' That's not from a heretical tradition.
The Samaritan woman saying all the stuff about the messiah coming from Jerusalem etc. etc.
Clearly the gospel of John is a complex, difficult to interpret text which came about from a compressing of multiple source material. That some of this material was Marcionite in origin - ok fine. But specifically 'Apellean'? No compelling reason to think so.
Some obvious problems.
The 'multiple year ministry' business that is inserted into the Gospel of John for instance. That comes from Irenaeus or his tradition. It is obvious from Adv Haer 2. Irenaeus needs Jesus to live to 49. This wasn't likely Apelles's concern and the Marcionites as well as everyone else undoubtedly had a single year ministry for Jesus.
The idea that the temple of Jerusalem is Jesus's father's house. That's not from Apelles.
The identification of Jesus as 'the king of Israel.' That's not from a heretical tradition.
The Samaritan woman saying all the stuff about the messiah coming from Jerusalem etc. etc.
Clearly the gospel of John is a complex, difficult to interpret text which came about from a compressing of multiple source material. That some of this material was Marcionite in origin - ok fine. But specifically 'Apellean'? No compelling reason to think so.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18761
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Apelles and the gospel of John.
The odd thing for me - and I never seem to take a break from giving my observations when no one has asked for them - is that the gospel of John seems to have been constructed as a repository of odds and ends from other texts. The introduction clearly belongs as part of some grand gospel. As it is it's like sticking a beautiful trophy on a messy shelf. The Gospel of John makes four. That's how I've always viewed it. It completes the set of four. Although there is another explanation. Maybe someone created the three canonical gospels out of a mega gospel intending to have three witnesses 'agree' on the same reality and then at the last minute (or subsequent to completing this vision or perhaps someone else) had a change of heart. The reason I say this is that in Rome at least it would seem that people accepted the three synoptics without John. So this 'synoptic set' may have circulated separately. But anyway as I said, there was this mega gospel. Then the three synoptic set with a competing vision of who Jesus was. And then someone, whether the original author of the synoptic set or a subsequent assistant had a change of heart and then having all this 'extra stuff left over' at the last minute decided to make a fourth gospel.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Apelles and the gospel of John.
Okay.Secret Alias wrote:It's nice to have theories. I've developed more than a few. If we take this is as 'an idea' or a theory filled with 'thoughts' 'observations' 'ideas' - sure there is some merit to some of the thoughts, observations, ideas in the most general sense. But as to whether it captures 'reality' - i.e. 'the origin of the Gospel of John'? Nah.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ