Apelles and the gospel of John.

[Adam]

"Knowing only the baptism of John" from Acts 18:25 jibes with "baptism" being common in the Synoptics and absent in GJohn and "baptize" likewise except occurring FOUR times in John 1:25-33, the "baptism of John". Do we have here an Apollos who wrote GJohn with "only the baptism of John"?
Such an Apollos in my schemata for GJohn would be the Redactor who finished GJohn BEFORE 60 A. D. Even I don't tend to push it that early, though recognizing the Redactor as a relatively distant non-eyewitness could well have been an early follow-up on what I say eyewitnesses wrote as the Signs Gospel by Andrew, the Passion Narrative by John Mark, the Discourses by Nicodemus (while Jesus was still alive) and edited by John the Apostle (with his own eyewitness contributions to John 13 and John 20).

[MrMacSon]

Acts 18 (ESV)
25 " ...being fervent in [the] spirit, he [Apollos] spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, *though he knew only the baptism of John*. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."

Sound like his 'teachings' needed to remediated or updated.

Perhaps this reflects changing theology.

[Adam]

Granted, Johannine theology can be "out there". It tends to be incorporated into orthodoxy anyway. Yet many critics regard it as "saved" by the Redactor's anti-Docetism, precisely what would have been Apelles's role here hypothesized.

[enricotuccinardi]

What I find really surprising is that in Severus, a supposedly follower of Apelles we can find exactly the same system that Deconick have convincingly detected in John about the identity of the devil and his father. Epiphanius (Pan. XLV.1.3) wrote:

He [Severus] wants to ascribe the creation of our world to authorities and powers. There is in an unnamed highest heaven and aeon, a good God. The devil, he says, is the son of the great ruler over the host of the powers, whom he now names Jaldabaoth, now Sabaoth. This one who was born from him is a serpent. He was cast down by the power above to the earth [...]

To me this lead towards Parvus' solution rather than towards Deconick's one.

[Stuart]

The point is that Marcionism = Judaism

Only in your strange mind. And only from a rather singular reading and weighting of evidence.

[Secret Alias]

Well strictly speaking Christianity developed as a Jewish sect so you'd have to demonstrate the plausibility of the existence of "un-Judaic Christianity." Just citing the Church Fathers say Marcion hated or depreciated the Creator isn't enough. Why is considering Marcionism a form of Judaism at all controversial? Even by the standard model of Marcionism there are bits of the Pentateuch and Isaiah in the sacred writings. Jewish concepts take center stage. How could that have occurred in a non or extra Judaic religion? Moreover the same Church Fathers accuse Marcion of borrowing from Jewish sources and Jewish inspiration. How could any of this be reflective of a non or extra Jewish religion?

I guess the proper questions would be - how would you define Judaism? As a religion or as a national identity? If the former then surely Marcionism sees itself as the continuation of the Jewish story, of the Jewish historical narrative. If the latter then yes Marcionism was certainly opposed or separated from the continued existence of the traditional Jewish cultural and national identity. But wasn't normative Christianity, "orthodoxy" the exact same in that respect?

[Ulan]

I guess the proper questions would be - how would you define Judaism? As a religion or as a national identity? If the former then surely Marcionism sees itself as the continuation of the Jewish story, of the Jewish historical narrative. If the latter then yes Marcionism was certainly opposed or separated from the continued existence of the traditional Jewish cultural and national identity. But wasn't normative Christianity, "orthodoxy" the exact same in that respect?

As Joseph B. Tyson points out in his article "Anti-Judaism in Marcion and his Opponents" (2011), the anti-Judaism in catholic Christianity was much more dangerous, because catholic Christianity considered itself as the true heir of Israel and the remaining Jews as heretics who denied the gift from their own God. This led to the catholic solution being more like "embrace, and if that doesn't help, strangle".

[Giuseppe]

I guess the proper questions would be - how would you define Judaism? As a religion or as a national identity? If the former then surely Marcionism sees itself as the continuation of the Jewish story, of the Jewish historical narrative. If the latter then yes Marcionism was certainly opposed or separated from the continued existence of the traditional Jewish cultural and national identity. But wasn't normative Christianity, "orthodoxy" the exact same in that respect?

As Joseph B. Tyson points out in his article "Anti-Judaism in Marcion and his Opponents" (2011), the anti-Judaism in catholic Christianity was much more dangerous, because catholic Christianity considered itself as the true heir of Israel and the remaining Jews as heretics who denied the gift from their own God. This led to the catholic solution being more like "embrace, and if that doesn't help, strangle".

It is when I read arguments of this kind that it is necessary, at least for respect for the Jews (of any time), to remember the following words of a scholar:

Marcion represented an extreme position: he believed that there was no connection between Judaism and Christianity. This view is historically impossible. Marcion denigrated Judaism. He picked one side of the Pauline legacy and radicalised it to the extreme. His orthodox opponents developed the other side of this legacy; but their way of establishing continuity was also arbitrary, both from the Jewish and from an historical point of view.
Perhaps unexpectedly, with regard to practical consequences, the exclusive view of Marcion seems less harmful. Where Catholic Christianity took the symbols and attacked the people, Marcion “attacked the symbols but left the people alone.” [Wilson, Strangers, 22]1.Stephen Wilson hits the nail on the head:

It is clear that both the Marcionite and the Catholic position involve
a denigration of Judaism . . . I would not like to be found defending
either view of Judaism. However it might be argued that the one which
more obviously belittles Jewish symbols was, ironically, in practice the
lesser of two evils... Judaism is the loser in either case. Whether the
Marcionite position, had it prevailed, would have led to the same sad
consequences as the view of its opponents is hard to say. But it is
worth a moment’s reflection

[7 Stephen G. Wilson, “Marcion and the Jews,” in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity
2: Separation and Polemic (ed. Stephen G. Wilson; Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University
Press, 1986), 58.]

(A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”, p. 118-119, my bold)

[Ulan]

Well, that's not an unreasonable position. Giving power to fanatics often results in less than desirable outcomes.

[Secret Alias]

Perhaps we should also remind ourselves that - against the Catholic or orthodox position - the individual Church Fathers wrote as individuals rather than as designated spokespeople for "the tradition." So Tertullian wrote or polished up a treatise Against Marcion directed against a portion of "the Church" or Christianity claiming its enemies were outside the same Church. We read these writers as if what they wrote, what they portrayed was the same as thr truth, the actual reality of the times. But the hyperbole in these treatises makes this an extremely naive position. Tertullian wrote with the explicit purpose TO ALIENATE his enemies. They were not necessarily outsiders before or even after Against Marcion. It is a lot like Hitler's Mein Kampf. Jews were Germans when Hitler argued they weren't Germans and they continued to be Germans even after he seized power. My great grandmother remained a proud German after her rescue from a concentration camp. She never left and refused to allow Hitler's definition of what a German was to encroach upon what was in her heart. Her experience was no less than her son (my grandfather) who as a North African concentration camp survivor fought with the British and Americans through Italy and eventually was promoted - as a German - to a prominent position in the American led post-War regime. His emigration to North America had no bearing on his German identity. He left for reasons related to his business.

The point is that we must be careful to avoid being tricked into thinking that writings represent the truth or eyewitness testimony. They only represent arguments. Tertullian argued that for this or that reason that Marcionites weren't Christians in the same way Hitler made the case that Jews weren't Germans. In order to make their cases seem convincing they disguise the fact that they are merely arguing on behalf of a position. They make it seem as if the self-evident nature of their claims require no assistance from argumentation. But this is in itself a skilled rhetorical technique. We shouldn't continue to fall victim to its power.

To this end when this idiot argues:

Marcion represented an extreme position: he believed that there was no connection between Judaism and Christianity. This view is historically impossible.

we should be immediately suspicious of an "impossible" position. Most people hold somewhat reasonable positions when seen from the proper perspective. Given that the Marcionites used an edition of Paul's letters which had citations of the Pentateuch and Isaiah it is unlikely that any Marcionite held the view that his religion had no relation to Judaism. Tertullian himself goes so far as to speak of Marcionite "borrowing" from Judaism on more than one occasion rendering this claim absolutely untenable. At best the author is helping us ignore the complexity of Marcionism which serves all those who want to have confidence in their prejudices and license to promulgate invention as history - in short act as a latter day Tertullian (or Hitler), that is as a writer.