andrewcriddle wrote:One issue I have is that IMO the liar and father of lies who is the Father of Jesus' Jewish opponents really has to be the Devil hO DIABOLOS the slanderer. It is what the name means.
(DeConick argues that "father of lies" is a mistranslation.)
Assuming FTSOA that she is right, I don't think it really affects my point.
I can restate it :
IMO the liar who is the Father of Jesus' Jewish opponents really has to be the Devil hO DIABOLOS the slanderer. It is what the name means.
andrewcriddle wrote:One issue I have is that IMO the liar and father of lies who is the Father of Jesus' Jewish opponents really has to be the Devil hO DIABOLOS the slanderer. It is what the name means.
(DeConick argues that "father of lies" is a mistranslation.)
Assuming FTSOA that she is right, I don't think it really affects my point.
I can restate it :
IMO the liar who is the Father of Jesus' Jewish opponents really has to be the Devil hO DIABOLOS the slanderer. It is what the name means.
I agree it does not affect your overall point; hence the parentheses.
RParvus wrote: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.
Secret Alias wrote: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.
I would not have put it that way, but yes, I agree. There was a "super-gospel" (though I would NOT call it a Diatessaron, since it involved the Synoptics primarily, NOT the "four") However, at least John 21 came out of this re-shuffling.
Secret Alias wrote:Let's start with how much more natural it is to add to Scripture than subtract large sections of text over and over and over again. The sheer scale of "subtraction" would be overwhelming. And then for what purpose? When it's only a few paragraphs long why not just forge something from scratch (like 3 Corinthians)? Moreover the length of the Catholic epistles (not just these but Paul too) are unnatural. The Syriac are the expected length of an epistle from a chained prisoner. The Catholic epistles ludicrously extended too long. How's that for a start in 2 minutes?
How about the Gospel of Mark? It used to be mandatory orthodoxy (Augustinian Hypothesis) to regard Mark as an abridgment of GMatthew. It wasn't, but I hold that it was indeed an abridgment (in contrast to GMatthew that did NOT abridge) of the super-gospel ("Proto-Gospel" is my preferred term, better than Urevangelium or Grundschrift, though "Proto-Matthew" would ideally describe it AT THIS STAGE of the "Evolving Proto-Gospel") at the stage it had reached after GLuke had been derived from it. So cutting is indeed done, it's just that GMark is (in error) not NOW usually so regarded. So on this one I stand directly opposed to Stephen (SA).
Last edited by Adam on Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Everyone has their favorite Jesus saying. Mine is "I have often desired to hear one of these words, and I had no one who could utter it." It applies to scholars especially. How many arguments haven't we heard simply because the skill set of Europeans only lends themselves to certain arguments? Many I suspect
“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
Peter Kirby wrote:
"Apollo" (Greek: Apollos), who is often mentioned as a Pauline colleague (Acts 18:24; 19:1; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4, 5, 6, 22; 4:6; 16:12; Titus 3:13), may be a transparent disguise for Apelles, a disciple of Marcion who, however, struck out on his own, revising Marcionite theology in some respects.
- Robert Price, in The Amazing Colossal Apostle
The connection may be even more transparent than suggested:
In addition to the list provided by Peter K, quoted above, the names Apelles also appears in Romans 16:10
'Greet Apelles, whose fidelity to Christ has stood the test.'
Mentions in the NT are interesting -
1 Corinthians 1:12
'Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ".'
The next passage - 1 Cor 1:13 - is also interesting -
13 "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"
as is 1 Cor 3:4-6 -
4 'For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings? 5 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. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.'
& Acts 18:24-28
'Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
