Apelles and the gospel of John.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

If we take this is as "an idea" or a theory filled with "thoughts," "observations," or "ideas" — sure, there is some merit to some of the thoughts, observations, or ideas in the most general sense. But does it capture "reality," that is, the origin of the gospel of John'? Nah.

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.

If we take this is as "an idea" or a theory filled with "thoughts," "observations," or "ideas" — sure, there is some merit to some of the thoughts, observations, or ideas in the most general sense. But does it capture "reality," that is, the origin of the gospel of John'? Nah.

[Ben C. Smith]

Yes I have read what Parvus has written and didn't want to get personal (because we share many of the same conclusions but differ on others).

There is no need to get personal, regardless. All one has to do is politely respond to the arguments, whether in agreement or in disagreement, remembering not to take the other person to task for things that one does all the time oneself.

[MrMacSon]

Here are some of the reasons I suspect a specifically Apellean provenance for the original GJohn....

Thanks, Roger. Nice, succinct summary of your argument.

I agree. It was a good & interesting read: a well laid out case.

[MrMacSon]

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.

Interesting, but that doesn't preclude some or a lot of gJohn having come from a Marcionite tradition via Apelles. As you say at the end of that post -

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.

The identification of Jesus as 'the king of Israel.' That's not from a heretical tradition.

It is unlikely that it would have been a 'heretical' tradition then, where it was developed - there would have been a milieu of developing 'traditions' all over the place then.

[Secret Alias]

There is no need to get personal, regardless.

No for me it is impossible because I am a horrible person. I mean that sincerely. I can't believe that someone would publish something like this even at a blog without realizing and dealing with the Syriac text. But as I said I am a horrible and horribly mean person. I may have insane opinions but they are well researched - like down to the finding the obscurest surviving reference - and then my lack of judgment leads me to the wrong conclusions. Unlike most people who have badly researched 'reasoned' conclusions (i.e. they ignore evidence which contradicts their theories consciously or unconsciously). All of which leads to the questions (at least for me) - does my lack of judgment and insane conclusions derive from an overloaded brain? If I didn't work as hard, didn't know so much more than everyone else might I arrive at reasoned conclusions. As deliberately silly as this was to say, there is some truth to it. Nietzsche says 'many consider themselves good because they have no claws'). Something like that.

[Secret Alias]

So to repeat - had Parvis known about the Syriac recension he wouldn't have come to these conclusions about Apelles who probably wasn't a deviant a deviant Marcionite anywhere. He was just a Marcionite.

[Secret Alias]

And I haven't looked at this shit in many years but I having read Parvis's claims I can see at once the utter bullshit of it all. Ignatius doesn't know or use the OT? Why does he say that? Because the editors didn't provide any examples in their footnotes? From the first or second sentence of the Syriac to Polycarp:

inasmuch as it is established in God, as on a rock which is immoveable

Zechariah:

I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations

Like come on. If you don't have knowledge about the 'OT' then stop making self-serving judgments to facilitate your thesis.

[Secret Alias]

Do I really have to continue? Do we need to pretend that there REALLY ARE no 'OT' allusions in the original Syriac or can we leave that argument to the side? There are no gospel citations either as far as I can remember. So that means Ignatius didn't know the 'NT' either?

[Secret Alias]

Well if I must, what follows in the sentence:

I glorify God the more exceedingly that I have been counted worthy of thy face, which I longed after in God.

This isn't an allusion to Genesis 32? It's really just saying that seeing Polycarp is like seeing the face or person of God WITHOUT allusion to Genesis 32. Please.

[MrMacSon]

There is no need to get personal, regardless.

... I may have insane opinions but they are well researched - like down to the finding the obscurest surviving reference - and then my lack of judgment leads me to the wrong conclusions ...

Your 'lack of judgement' leads to you not always being able to constructively or clearly articulate your arguments or your conclusions.

As the post previous to this one quoted shows. Or the one two above this^^