Apelles and the gospel of John.

[Ben C. Smith]

A good while ago I skimmed Roger Parvus' treatment of the Ignatian epistles on Vridar, found it interesting enough, but was busy with other things and did not really give it its due. Recently, however, I read it much more thoroughly, including and especially the final part (which I may not have even skimmed the first time, since none of it sounded familiar), which offers material for further development and exploration.

I highly recommend reading the entire series. My mind is not made up yet on the main theses, nor on a few of their subsidiary points, but it is a great read, agree or disagree. The main thrust is that Ignatius was actually Peregrinus, and Peregrinus was an Apellean Christian. But here I want to focus on what is actually a supplementary issue in the series: the gospel of John, which Parvus briefly argues to be an Apellean gospel reworked by Catholic editors to bring it into line with the orthodoxy of the time. My knowledge of the ex-Marcionite Apelles and his theological system was (and still is) relatively slim, so I have also tracked down a number of patristic passages about him and will present them in two posts following this OP:

1. Tertullian, pseudo-Tertullian, and Hippolytus.
2. Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Philastrius.

Upon reading Parvus on the matter of the gospel of John being Apellean in origin, I immediately thought of April DeConick's 2013 book chapter from Histories of the Hidden God: Concealment and Revelation in Western Gnostic, Esoteric, and Mystical Traditions, entitled Who Is Hiding in the Gospel of John?, and wondered whether her insights on the gospel, which she suspects (but does not actually argue in the article) may have a Cerinthian cast, would line up in any way with Parvus' ideas. DeConick begins her article as follows:

I became intrigued with Johannine theology when I noticed that the standard English translations of John 8:44 obscure the Greek, which reads: ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ. With the article preceding πατρὸς, the phrase τοῦ διαβόλου is a genitive phrase modifying the nominal phrase ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς. Thus: "You are from the father of the Devil." If the statement were to mean, as the standard English translation renders it, "You are of the father, the Devil," then the article preceding πατρὸς would not be present. In this case the phrase, "father" would be in the predicate position and could be expanded with an appositional phrase τοῦ διαβόλου, a grammatical choice that the author of John makes a few verses later in 8:56 when referencing Abraham: Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν, "Abraham, your father."

This literal reading is confirmed by the last segment of the verse (8:44f) which straightforwardly acknowledges the present of two beings, the liar and his father: ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ. The full verse reasons that the Devil lies since his nature is that of a liar. Why? Because not only is the Devil a liar himself but his father is also a liar. But this is not the sense of the standard English translation which is peculiar and strained. It reads αὐτοῦ as a genitive "it" referring to an unnamed singular antecedent such as "lying" or "falsehood." Thus: ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ is rendered in the standard English translation idiosyncratically, "the father of lies."

In order to sort out what was going on with this verse, I went back through the literature and discovered that this verse has a controversial history. .... I found that this verse functioned as a calling card for Gnostics who used it as plain evidence that Jesus taught that the Jewish God was the father of the Devil.

The Johannine divine system, then, according to DeConick's reading, contains (at least) four entities of note:

1. Supreme God = Father (of Jesus).
2. Jesus himself.
3. God of the Jews = Father of the Devil.
4. The Devil himself.

Now, Apelles' system is said to have multiple divine entities, as well. Hippolytus writes in Refutation of All Heresies 7.38:

But Apelles, sprung from these, thus expresses himself, (saying) that there is a certain good Deity, as also Marcion supposed, and that he who created all things is just. Now he, (according to Apelles,) was the Demiurge of generated entities. And (this heretic also maintains) that there is a third (Deity), the one who was in the habit of speaking to Moses, and that this (god) was of a fiery nature, and that there was another fourth god, a cause of evils. But these he denominates angels.

He summarizes again in Refutation of All Heresies 10.20:

But Apelles, a disciple of this heretic, was displeased at the statements advanced by his preceptor, as we have previously declared, and by another theory supposed that there are four gods. And the first of these he alleges to be the Good Being, whom the prophets did not know, and Christ to be His Son. And the second God, he affirms to be the Creator of the universe, and Him he does not wish to be a God. And the third God, he states to be the fiery one that was manifested; and the fourth to be an evil one. And Apelles calls these angels; and by adding (to their number) Christ likewise, he will assert Him to be a fifth God.

These divine entities, then, are as follows (I have changed the order of presentation):

1. Good Deity (unknown to prophets) = Father of Christ.
2. Christ himself.
3. God who spoke to Moses.
4. Another God, a cause of evils.
5. Creator of the Universe, not really a God but rather an angel.

I suggest that numbers 1-4 from DeConick's reconstruction and numbers 1-4 from Hippolytus' description of Apelles' system line up pretty well. Hippolytus does not specify that the "other God," the cause of evils, is the Devil, nor that he is the son of the Jewish God (the one who appeared to Moses), but overall the divine descriptions seem pretty similar. (Some latitude must be allowed, of course, for patristic misunderstandings of heretical teachings, as well.)

What is missing in the gospel of John, of course, is a separate Creator God, but Parvus argues that Catholic editors went back and made Jesus' Father the Creator of the world anyway, creating tensions such as that between John 17.9 ("I do not pray for the world") and John 3.16 ("for God so loved the world").

At any rate, I would love to hear from any who have read Parvus' series and/or DeConick's chapter on this matter, and who have further insights into it all.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian:

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 6.5-6	Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 6.5-6
[5] Itaque etiamsi angelus de caelis aliter euangelizaret, anathema diceretur a nobis. [6] Prouiderat iam tunc Spiritus sanctus futurum in uirgine quadam Philumene angelum seductionis transfigurantem se in angelum lucis, cuius signis et praestigiis Apelles inductus nouam haeresin induxit.	[5] If, therefore, even "an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel" (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us. [6] The Holy Ghost had even then foreseen that there would be in a certain virgin (called) Philumene an angel of deceit, "transformed into an angel of light," by whose miracles and illusions Apelles was led (when) he introduced his new heresy.

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 10.6-9

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 10.6-9

[6] Ceterum si quia et alia tanta ab aliis sunt instituta, propterea in tantum quaerere debemus, in quantum possumus inuenire, semper quaeremus et nunquam omnino credemus. [7] Vbi enim erit finis quaerendi? ubi statio credendi? ubi expunctio inueniendi? Apud Marcionem? Sed et Valentinus proponit: quaerite et inuenietis. [8] Apud Valentinum? Sed et Apelles hac me pronuntiatione pulsabit; et Hebion et Simon et omnes ex ordine non habent aliud quo se mihi insinuantes me sibi adducant. [9] Erit itaque nusquam, dum ubique conuenio quaerite et inuenietis et uelut si nusquam et quasi qui numquam apprehenderim illud quod Christus instituit, quod quaeri oportet, quod credi necesse est.

[6] If, however, because so many other things have been taught by one and another, we are on that account bound to go on seeking, so long as we are able to find anything, we must (at that rate) be ever seeking, and never believe anything at all. [7] For where shall be the end of seeking? where the stop in believing? where the completion in finding? (Shall it be) with Marcion? But even Valentinus proposes (to us the) maxim, "Seek, and ye shall find." [8] (Then shall it be) with Valentinus? Well, but Apelles, too, will assail me with the same quotation; Hebion also, and Simon, and all in turn, have no other argument wherewithal to entice me, and draw me over to their side. [9] Thus I shall be nowhere, and still be encountering (that challenge), "Seek, and ye shall find," precisely as if I had no resting-place; as if (indeed) I had never found that which Christ has taught—that which ought to be sought, that which must needs be believed.

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 30.5-8

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 30.5-8

[5] Si et Apellis stemma retractandum est, tam non uetus et ipse quam Marcion institutor et praeformator eius, sed lapsus in feminam desertor continentiae Marcionensis, ab oculis sanctissimi magistri Alexandriam secessit. [6] Inde post annos regressus non melior nisi tantum qua iam non Marcionites, in alteram feminam impegit, illam uirginem Philumenen, quam supra edidimus, postea uero inmane prostibulum et ipsam, cuius energemate circumuentus, quas ab ea didicit Fanerw&seij scripsit. [7] Adhuc in saeculo supersunt qui meminerint eorum, etiam proprii discentes et successores ipsorum ne se posteriores negare possint. [8] Quamquam et de operibus suis, ut dixit Dominus, reuincuntur.

[5] If we must likewise touch the descent of Apelles, he is far from being" one of the old school," like his instructor and moulder, Marcion; he rather forsook the continence of Marcion, by resorting to the company of a woman, and withdrew to Alexandria, out of sight of his most abstemious master. [6] Returning therefrom, after some years, unimproved, except that he was no longer a Marcionite, he clave to another woman, the maiden Philumene (whom we have already mentioned), who herself afterwards became an enormous prostitute. Having been imposed on by her vigorous spirit, he committed to writing the revelations which he had learned of her. [7] Persons are still living who remember them,—their own actual disciples and successors,—who cannot therefore deny the lateness of their date. [8] But, in fact, by their own works they are convicted, even as the Lord said.

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 33.3-6

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 33.3-6

[3] Paulus, in prima ad Corinthios notat negatores et dubitatores resurrectionis : haec opinio propria Sadducaeorum. [4] Partem eius usurpat Marcion et Apelles et Valentinus et si qui alii resurrectionem carnis infringunt. [5] Et ad Galatas scribens inuehitur in obseruatores et defensores circumcisionis et legis, Hebionis haeresis sic est. [6] Timotheum instruens nuptiarum quoque interdictores suggillat. Ita instituunt Marcion et Apelles eius secutor.

[3] Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees. [4] A part of it, however, is maintained by Marcion and Apelles and Valentinus, and all other impugners of the resurrection. [5] Writing also to the Galatians, he inveighs against such men as observed and defend circumcision and the (Mosaic) law. Thus runs Hebion's heresy. [6] Such also as "forbid to marry" he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy. Now, this is the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles.

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 34.3-5

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 34.3-5

[3] Nemo alterum deum ausus est suspicari, facilius de filio quam de patre haesitabatur, donec Marcion praeter Creatorem alium Deum solius bonitatis induceret. [4] Apelles creatorem angelum nescio quem gloriosum superioris Dei faceret deum legis et Israelis, illum igneum affirmans, Valentinus Aeonas suos spargeret et unius Aeonis uitium in originem deduceret Dei creatoris. [5] His solis et his primis reuelata est ueritas diuinitatis, maiorem scilicet dignationem et pleniorem gratiam a diabolo consecutis qui Deum sic quoque uoluerit aemulari, ut de doctrinis uenenorum, quod Dominus negauit, ipse faceret discipulos super magistrum.

[3] No man was bold enough to surmise a second god. More readily was doubt felt about the Son than about the Father, until Marcion introduced, in addition to the Creator, another god of goodness only. [4] Apelles made the Creator of some nondescript glorious angel, who belonged to the superior God, the god (according to him, ) of the law and of Isreal, affirming that he was fire. Valentinus disseminated his Aeons, and traced the sin of one Aeon to the production of God the Creator. [5] To none, forsooth, except these, nor prior to these, was revealed the truth of the Divine Nature; and they obtained this especial honour and fuller favour from the devil, we cannot doubt, because he wished even in this respect to rival God, that he might succeed, by the poison of his doctrines, in doing himself what the Lord said could not be done—making "the disciples above their Master."

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 37.2-3

Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics 37.2-3

[2] Si enim haeretici sunt, christiani esse non possunt, non a Christo habendo quod de sua electione sectati haereticorum nomine admittunt. [3] Ita non christiani nullum ius capiunt christianarum litterarum ad quos merito dicendum est: ' Qui estis? quando et unde uenistis? quid in meo agitis, non mei? quo denique, Marcion, iure siluam meam caedis? qua licentia, Valentine, fontes meos transuertis? qua potestate, Apelles, limites meos commoues?

[2] For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. [3] Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood? By whose permission, Valentinus, are you diverting the streams of my fountain? By what power, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks?

Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.11.1-2

Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.11.1-2

[1] Totas istas praestigias putativae in Christo corpulentiae Marcion illa intentione suscepit, ne ex testimonio substantiae humanae nativitas quoque eius defenderetur, atque ita Christus creatoris vindicaretur, ut qui nascibilis ac per hoc carneus annuntiaretur. Stultissime et hic Ponticus; quasi non facilius crederetur caro in deo non nata quam falsa, praestruentibus vel maxime fidem istam angelis creatoris in carne vera conversatis, nec tamen nata. [2] Nam et Philumene illa magis persuasit Apelli ceterisque desertoribus Marcionis ex fide quidem Christum circumtulisse carnem, nullius tamen nativitatis, utpote de elementis eam mutuatum. Quodsi verebatur Marcion ne fides carnis nativitatis quoque fidem induceret, sine dubio qui homo videbatur, natus utique credebatur.

[1] All these illusions of an imaginary corporeity in (his) Christ, Marcion adopted with this view, that his nativity also might not be furnished with any evidence from his human substance, and that thus the Christ of the Creator might be free to have assigned to Him all predictions which treated of Him as one capable of human birth, and therefore fleshly. But most foolishly did our Pontic heresiarch act in this too. As if it would not be more readily believed that flesh in the Divine Being should rather be unborn than untrue, this belief having in fact had the way mainly prepared for it by the Creator's angels when they conversed in flesh which was real, although unborn. [2] For indeed the notorious Philumena persuaded Apelles and the other seceders from Marcion rather to believe that Christ did really carry about a body of flesh; not derived to Him, however, from birth, but one which He borrowed from the elements. Now, as Marcion was apprehensive that a belief of the fleshly body would also involve a belief of birth, undoubtedly He who seemed to be man was believed to be verily and indeed born.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.17.11-12

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.17.11-12

[11] Eligant itaque Marcionitae ne tanti sit de magistri regula excidere quanti Christum aut hominibus aut creatori docentem habere. Sed caecus caecum ducit in foveam. Credunt aliqui Marcioni. Sed non est discipulus super magistmm. Hoc meminisse debuerat Apelles, Marcionis de discipulo emendator. Eximat et de oculo suo trabem haereticus, tunc in oculo Christiani si quam putat stipulam revincat. Proinde et arbor bona non proferat malum fructum, quia nec veritas haeresim; nec mala bonum, quia nec haeresis veritatem. Sic nec Marcion aliquid boni de thesauro Cerdonis malo protulit, nec Apelles de Marcionis. [12] Multo enim haec congruentius in ipsos interpretabimur quae Christus in homines allegorizavit, non in duos deos secundum scandalum Marcionis. Puto me non temere hucusque adhuc lineae insistere, qua definio nusquam omnino alium deum a Christo revelatum. In hoc solo adulterium Marcionis manus stupuisse miror. Nisi quod etiam latrones timent. Nullum maleficium sine formidine est, quia nec sine conscientia sui. Tam diu ergo et Iudaei non alium deum norant quam praeter quem neminem adhuc norant, nec alium deum appellabant quam quem solum norant. Si ita est, quis videbitur dixisse, Quid vocas, Domine, domine?

[11] Let the Marcionites therefore make their choice: Will it not be just the same inconsistency to desert the prescription of their master, as to have Christ teaching in the interest of men or of the Creator? But "a blind man will lead a blind man into the ditch." Some persons believe Marcion. But "the disciple is not above his master." Apelles ought to have remembered this----a corrector of Marcion, although his disciple. The heretic ought to take the beam out of his own eye, and then he may convict the Christian, should he suspect a mote to be in his eye. Just as a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, so neither can truth generate heresy; and as a corrupt tree cannot yield good fruit, so heresy will not produce truth. Thus, Marcion brought nothing good out of Cerdon's evil treasure; nor Apelles out of Marcion's. [12] For in applying to these heretics the figurative words which Christ used of men in general, we shall make a much more suitable interpretation of them than if we were to deduce out of them two gods, according to Marcion's grievous exposition. I think that I have the best reason possible for insisting still upon the position which I have all along occupied, that in no passage to be anywhere found has another God been revealed by Christ. I wonder that in this place alone Marcion's hands should have felt benumbed in their adulterating labour. But even robbers have their qualms now and then. There is no wrong-doing without fear, because there is none without a guilty conscience. So long, then, were the Jews cognisant of no other god but Him, beside whom they knew none else; nor did they call upon any other than Him whom alone they knew. This being the case, who will He clearly be that said, "Why callest thou me Lord, Lord?"

Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 1.1-4

Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 1.1-4

[1] Qui fidem resurrectionis ante istos Sadducaeorum propinquos sine controversia moratam ita student inquietare ut eam spem negent etiam ad carnem pertinere, merito Christi quoque carnem quaestionibus distrahunt, tanquam aut nullam omnino aut quoquo modo aliam praeter humanam, ne si humanam constiterit fuisse praeiudicatum sit adversus illos eam resurgere omni modo, quae in Christo resurrexerit. igitur unde illi destruunt carnis vota, inde nobis erunt praestruenda. [2] examinemus corporalem substantiam domini: de spiritali enim certum est. caro quaeritur: veritas et qualitas eius retractatur, an fuerit et unde et cuiusmodi fuerit. renuntiatio eius dabit legem nostrae resurrectioni. Marcion ut carnem Christi negaret negavit etiam nativitatem, aut ut nativitatem negaret negavit et carnem, scilicet ne invicem sibi testimonium responderent nativitas et caro, quia nec nativitas sine carne nec caro sine nativitate: [3] quasi non eadem licentia haeretica et ipse potuisset aut admissa carne nativitatem negare ut Apelles discipulus et postea desertor ipsius, aut et carnem et nativitatem confessus aliter illas interpretari ut condiscipulus et condesertor eius Valentinus. [4] sed et, qui carnem Christi putativam introduxit, aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma confingere, ut et conceptus et praegnatus et partus virginis, et ipsius exinde infantis ordo, το δοκειν haberentur: eosdem oculos, eosdem sensus fefellissent, quos carnis opinio elusit.

[1] They who are so anxious to shake that belief in the resurrection which was firmly settled before the appearance of our modern Sadducees, as even to deny that the expectation thereof has any relation whatever to the flesh, have great cause for besetting the flesh of Christ also with doubtful questions, as if it either had no existence at all, or possessed a nature altogether different from human flesh. For they cannot but be apprehensive that, if it be once determined that Christ's flesh was human, a presumption would immediately arise in opposition to them, that that flesh must by all means rise again, which has already risen in Christ. Therefore we shall have to guard our belief in the resurrection from the same armoury, whence they get their weapons of destruction. [2] Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed. It is His flesh that is in question. Its verity and quality are the points in dispute. Did it ever exist? whence was it derived? and of what kind was it? If we succeed in demonstrating it, we shall lay down a law for our own resurrection. Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity; because, of course, he was afraid that His nativity and His flesh bore mutual testimony to each other's reality, since there is no nativity without flesh, and no flesh without nativity. [3] As if indeed, under the prompting of that licence which is ever the same in all heresy, he too might not very well have either denied the nativity, although admitting the flesh,----like Apelles, who was first a disciple of his, and afterwards an apostate,----or, while admitting both the flesh and the nativity, have interpreted them in a different sense, as did Valentinus, who resembled Apelles both in his discipleship and desertion of Marcion. [4] At all events, he who represented the flesh of Christ to be imaginary was equally able to pass off His nativity as a phantom; so that the virgin's conception, and pregnancy, and child-bearing, and then the whole course of her infant too, would have to be regarded as putative. These facts pertaining to the nativity of Christ would escape the notice of the same eyes and the same senses as failed to grasp the full idea of His flesh.

Tertullian, On the Soul 23.3	Tertullian, On the Soul 23.3
[3] Apelles sollicitatas refert animas terrenis escis de supercaelestibus sedibus ab igneo angelo, deo Israelis et nostro, qui exinde illis peccatricem circumfinxerit carnem.	[3] Apelles tells us that our souls were enticed by earthly baits down from their super-celestial abodes by a fiery angel, Israel's God; and ours, who then enclosed them firmly within our sinful flesh.

Tertullian, On the Soul 36.2-3

Tertullian, On the Soul 36.2-3

[2] Anima in utero seminata pariter cum carne pariter cum ipsa sortitur et sexum, ita pariter, ut in causa sexus neutra substantia teneatur. Si enim in seminibus utriusque substantiae aliquam intercapedinem eorum conceptus admitteret, ut aut caro aut anima prior seminaretur, esset etiam sexus proprietatem alteri substantiae adscribere per temporalem intercapedinem seminum, ut aut caro animae aut anima carni insculperet sexum, [3] quoniam et Apelles, non pictor, sed haereticus, ante corpora constituens animas uiriles ac muliebres, sicut a Philumena didicit, utique carnem ut posteriorem ab anima facit accipere sexum. Et qui animam post partum carni superducunt utique ante formatae, marem aut feminam de carne sexum praeiudicant animae.

[2] The soul, being sown in the womb at the same time as the body, receives likewise along with it its sex; and this indeed so simultaneously, that neither of the two substances can be alone regarded as the cause of the sex. Now, if in the semination of these substances any interval were admissible in their conception, in such wise that either the flesh or the soul should be the first to be conceived, one might then ascribe an especial sex to one of the substances, owing to the difference in the time of the impregnations, so that either the flesh would impress its sex upon the soul, or the soul upon the sex; [3] even as Apelles (the heretic, not the painter) gives the priority over their bodies to the souls of men and women, as he had been taught by Philumena, and in consequence makes the flesh, as the later, receive its sex from the soul. They also who make the soul supervene after birth on the flesh predetermine, of course, the sex of the previously formed soul to be male or female, according to (the sex of) the flesh.

Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 2.3-4

Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 2.3-4

[3] Ideoque et Christum aliter disponere coacti, ne creatoris habeatur, in ipsa prius carne eius erraverunt, aut nullius veritatis contendentes eam secundum Marcionem et Basiliden, aut propriae qualitatis secundum heredes Valentini et Apellen. [4] Atque ita sequitur ut salutem eius substantiae excludant cuius Christum consortem negant, certi illam summo praeiudicio resurrectionis instructam si iam in Christo resurrexerit caro.

[3] Driven then, as they are, to give a different dispensation to Christ, so that He may not be accounted as belonging to the Creator, they have achieved their first error in the article of His very flesh; contending with Marcion and Basilides that it possessed no reality; or else holding, after the heretical tenets of Valentinus, and according to Apelles, that it had qualities peculiar to itself. [4] And so it follows that they shut out from all recovery from death that substance of which they say that Christ did not partake, confidently assuming that it furnishes the strongest presumption against the resurrection, since the flesh is already risen in Christ.

Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 5.2

Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 5.2

[2] Futtile et frivolum istud corpusculum, quod malum denique appellare non horrent, etsi angelorum fuisset operatio ut Menandro et Marco placet, etsi ignei alicuius extructio aeque angeli ut Apelles docet, sufficeret ad auctoritatem carnis secundae divinitatis patrocinium: angelos post deum novimus.

[2] Respecting, then, this frail and poor, worthless body, which they do not indeed hesitate to call evil, even if it had been the work of angels, as Menander and Marcus are pleased to think, or the formation of some fiery being, an angel, as Apelles teaches, it would be quite enough for securing respect for the body, that it had the support and protection of even a secondary deity. The angels, we know, rank next to God.

Pseudo-Tertullian:

Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 6.4-6

Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 6.4-6

[4] Post hos subsequitur Apelles, discipulus Marcionis, qui posteaquam in carnem suam lapsus est, a Marcione segregatus est. Hic introducit unum deum infinitis superioribus partibus. Hunc potestates multas angelosque fecisse; propterea et aliam virtutem, quam dici dominum dicit, sed angelum ponit. Hoc vult videri mundum institutum ad imitationem mundi superioris; cui mundo permiscuisse paenitentiam, quia non illum tam perfecte fecisset quam ille superior mundus institutus fuisset. Legem et prophetas repudiat. [5] Christum neque in phantasmate dicit fuisse, sicut Marcion, neque in substantia veri corporis, ut evangelium docet, sed ideo quod e superioribus partibus descenderet, ipso descensu sideream sibi carnem et aeream contexuisse: hunc in resurrectione singulis quibusque elementis quae in descensu suo mutuata fuissent in ascensu reddidisse, et sic dispersis quibusque corporis sui partibus in caelo spiritum tantum reddidisse. [6] Hic carnis resurrectionem negat. Solo utitur et apostolo, sed Marcionis, id est non toto. Animarum solarum dicit salutem. Habet praeterea privatas, sed extraordinarias lectiones suas, quas appellat phaneroseis, Philumenes cuiusdam puellae, quam quasi prophetissam sequitur. Habet praeterea suos libros, quos inscripsit Syllogismorum, in quibus probare vult quod omnia quaecunque Moyses de deo scripserit vera non sint, sed falsa sint.

[4] Close on their heels [Cerdo's, Marcion's, Lucan's] follows Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, who after lapsing, into his own carnality, was severed from Marcion. He introduces one God in the infinite upper regions, and states that He made many powers and angels; beside Him, withal, another Virtue, which he affirms to be called Lord, but represents as an angel. By him he will have it appear that the world . was originated in imitation of a superior world. With this lower world he mingled throughout (a principle of) repentance, because he had not made it so perfectly as that superior world had been originated. The Law and the prophets he repudiates. [5] Christ he neither, like Marcion, affirms to have been in a phantasmal shape, nor yet in substance of a true body, as the Gospel teaches; but says, because He descended from the upper regions, that in the course of His descent He wove together for Himself a starry and airy flesh; and, in His resurrection, restored, in the course of His ascent, to the several individual elements whatever had been borrowed in His descent: and thus-the several parts of His body dispersed-He reinstated in heaven His spirit only. [6] This man denies the resurrection of the flesh. He uses, too, one only apostle; but that is Marcion's, that is, a mutilated one. He teaches the salvation of souls alone. He has, besides, private but extraordinary lections of his own, which he calls "Manifestations" of one Philumene, a girl whom he follows as a prophetess. He has, besides, his own books, which he has entitled books of Syllogisms, in which he seeks to prove that whatever Moses has written about God is not true, but is false.

Hippolytus:

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.38 (7.26)

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.38 (7.26)

Ἀπελ<λ>ῆς δέ, καὶ <αὐτὸς> τούτων <μαθητὴς> γενόμενος, οὕτως λέγει· εἶναί τινα θεὸν ἀγαθόν, καθὼς καὶ Μαρκί(ων) ὑπέθετο· τὸν δὲ <τὰ> πάντα κτίσαντα εἶναι δίκαιον – ὃς τὰ γενόμενα ἐδημιούργησε· – καὶ τρίτον <δὲ εἶναι ἕτερον>, τὸν Μωσεῖ λαλήσαντα – πύρινον δὲ τοῦτον εἶναι· – εἶναι δὲ καὶ τέταρτον ἕτερον, <τὸν τῶν> κακῶν αἴτιον· τούτους δὲ ἀγγέλους ὀνομάζει. νόμον δὲ καὶ προφήτας δυσφημεῖ, ἀνθρώπινα καὶ ψευδῆ φάσκων εἶναι τὰ γεγραμμένα· τῶν δὲ εὐαγγελίων καὶ τοῦ ἀποστόλου τὰ ἀρέσκοντα αὐτῷ αἱρεῖται. Φιλουμένης δέ τινος λόγοις προσέχει ὡς προφήτιδος <ἐν ταῖς καλουμέναις> Φανερώς<εσι>. Τὸν δὲ Χριστὸν ἐκ τῆς ὕπερθεν δυνάμεώς <φησι> κατεληλυθέναι, τουτέστι τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ <θεοῦ>, κἀκείνου αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱόν. τοῦτον δὲ οὐκ ἐκ παρθένου γεγενῆσθαι, οὐδ' <αὖ> ἄσαρκον εἶναι <τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ> φανέντα λέγει, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας μεταλαβόντα μερῶν σῶμα πεποιηκέναι – τουτέστι θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ, καὶ ὑγροῦ καὶ ξηροῦ – , καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ σώματι λαθόντα τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐξουσίας βεβιωκέναι ὃν ἐβίωσε χρόνον ἐν <τῷ> κόσμῳ. Αὖθις δὲ ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνασκολοπισθέντα θανεῖν, καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐγερθέντα φανῆναι τοῖς μαθηταῖς <αὑτοῦ καὶ> δείξαντα τοὺς τύπους τῶν ἥλων καὶ τὴν πλευρὰν πείθειν ὅτι αὐτὸς εἴη καὶ οὐ φάντασμα· ἀλλὰ <γὰρ> ἔνσαρκος ἦν. σάρκ(α) <γοῦν>, φησίν, δείξας ἀπέδωκε γῇ, ἐξ ἧσπερ ἦν οὐσίας· μηδὲν <γὰρ> ἀλ<λό>τριον πλεονεκτῶν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς καιρὸν χρησάμενος, ἑκάστοις τὰ ἴδια ἀπέδωκε, λύσας πάλιν τὸν δεσμὸν τοῦ σώματος – <τουτέστι> θερμῷ τὸ θερμόν, ψυχρῷ τὸ ψυχρόν, ὑγρῷ τὸ ὑγρόν, ξηρῷ τὸ ξηρόν· – καὶ οὕτως ἐπορεύθη πρὸς τὸν ἀγαθὸν πατέρα, καταλιπὼν τὸ τῆς ζωῆς σπέρμα εἰς τὸν κόσμον διὰ τῶν μαθητῶν <αὑτοῦ> τοῖς πιστεύουσι. Δοκεῖ <οὖν> ἡμῖν καὶ τα(ῦτ)α ἱκανῶς ἐκτεθεῖσθαι· ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ μηδὲν παραλιπεῖν ἀνέλεγκτον ἐκρίναμεν τῶν ὑπὸ τῶν <αἱρετικῶν> δεδογματισμένων, ἴδωμεν τί καὶ τὸ τοῖς Δοκηταῖς <δόγμα> ἐπινενοημένον.

But Apelles, sprung from these, thus expresses himself, (saying) that there is a certain good Deity, as also Marcion supposed, and that he who created all things is just. Now he, (according to Apelles,) was the Demiurge of generated entities. And (this heretic also maintains) that there is a third (Deity), the one who was in the habit of speaking to Moses, and that this (god) was of a fiery nature, and that there was another fourth god, a cause of evils. But these he denominates angels. He utters, however, slanders against law and prophets, by alleging that the things that have been written are (of) human (origin), and are false. And (Apelles) selects from the Gospels or (from the writings of) the Apostle (Paul) whatever pleases himself, But he devotes himself to the discourses of a certain Philumene as to the revelations of a prophetess. He affirms, however, that Christ descended from the power above; that is, from the good (Deity), and that he is the son of that good (Deity). And (he asserts that Jesus) was not born of a virgin, and that when he did appear he was not devoid of flesh. (He maintains,) however, that (Christ) formed his booty by taking portions of it from the substance of the universe: that is, hot and cold, and moist and dry. And (he says that Christ), on receiving in this body cosmical powers, lived for the time he did in (this) world. But (he held that Jesus) was subsequently crucified by the Jews, and expired, and that, being raised Up after three days, he appeared to his disciples. And (the Saviour) showed them, (so Apelles taught,) the prints of the nails and (the wound) in his side, desirous of persuading them that he was in truth no phantom, but was present in the flesh. After, says (Apelles), he had shown them his flesh, (the Saviour) restored it to earth, from which substance it was (derived. And this he did because) he coveted nothing that belonged to another. (Though indeed Jesus) might use for the time being (what belonged to another), he yet in due course rendered to each (of the elements) what peculiarly belonged to them. And so it was, that after he had once more loosed the chains of his body, he gave back heat to what is hot, cold to what is cold, moisture to what is moist, (and) dryness to what is dry. And in this condition (our Lord) departed to the good Father, leaving the seed of life in the world for those who through his disciples should believe in him. It appears to us that these (tenets) have been sufficiently explained. Since, however, we have determined to leave unrefuted not one of those opinions that have been advanced by any (of the heretics), let us see what (system) also has been invented by the Docetae.

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 10.20 [10.16]

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 10.20 [10.16]

Ἀπελλῆς δέ, ὁ τούτου μαθητ(ή)ς, ἀπαρεσθεὶς τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου εἰρημένοις, καθὰ προείπομεν, ἄλλῳ λόγῳ ὑπέθετο τέσσαρας εἶναι θεούς, ὧν ἕνα φάσκει <ἀγαθόν> – ὃν οὔτε <ὁ νόμος οὔτε> οἱ προφ(ῆ)ται ἔγνωσαν· οὗ εἶναι υἱὸν τὸν Χριστόν – , ἕτερον δὲ τὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦ παντός – ὃν οὐ θεὸν <ἀλλὰ δύναμιν θεοῦ> εἶναι θέλει – , ἕτερον δὲ πύρινον – τὸν <Μωσεῖ> φανέντα – , ἕτερον δὲ πονηρόν· οὓς ἀγγέλους καλεῖ· προσθεὶς δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ πέμπτον ἐρεῖ. Προσέχει δὲ <ἐν> βίβλῳ, ἣ<ν> Φανερώσεις καλεῖ, Φιλουμένης τινὸς <λόγοις>, ἣν προφῆτιν νομίζει. τὴν δὲ σάρκα τὸν Χριστὸν οὐκ ἐκ τῆς παρθένου λέγει προσειληφέναι, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς παρακειμένης τοῦ κόσμου οὐσίας. οὗτος κατὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν συντάγματα ἐποίησε, »καταλύειν αὐτοὺς» ἐπιχειρῶν ὡς ψευδῆ λελαληκότας καὶ θεὸν μὴ ἐγνωκότας. σάρκας δὲ ἀπόλ<λ>υσθαι ὁμοίως Μαρκίωνι λέγει.

But Apelles, a disciple of this heretic, was displeased at the statements advanced by his preceptor, as we have previously declared, and by another theory supposed that there are four gods. And the first of these he alleges to be the Good Being, whom the prophets did not know, and Christ to be His Son. And the second God, he affirms to be the Creator of the universe, and Him he does not wish to be a God. And the third God, he states to be the fiery one that was manifested; and the fourth to be an evil one. And Apelles calls these angels; and by adding (to their number) Christ likewise, he will assert Him to be a fifth God. But this heretic is in the habit of devoting his attention to a book which he calls Revelations of a certain Philumene, whom he considers a prophetess. And he affirms that Christ did not receive his flesh from the Virgin, but from the adjacent substance of the world. In this manner he composed his treatises against the law and the prophets, and attempts to abolish them as if they had spoken falsehoods, and had not known God. And Apelles, similarly with Marcion, affirms that the different sorts of flesh are destroyed.

[Ben C. Smith]

Eusebius:

Eusebius, History of the Church 5.13.1-9

Eusebius, History of the Church 5.13.1-9

1 Ἐν τούτῳ καὶ Ῥόδων, γένος τῶν ἀπὸ Ἀσίας, μαθητευθεὶς ἐπὶ Ῥώμης, ὡς αὐτὸς ἱστορεῖ, Τατιανῷ, ὃν ἐκ τῶν πρόσθεν ἔγνωμεν, διάφορα συντάξας βιβλία, μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν καὶ πρὸς τὴν Μαρκίωνος παρατέτακται αἵρεσιν· ἣν καὶ εἰς διαφόρους γνώμας κατ' αὐτὸν διαστᾶσαν ἱστορεῖ, τοὺς τὴν διάστασιν ἐμπεποιηκότας ἀναγράφων ἐπ' ἀκριβές τε τὰς παρ' ἑκάστῳ τούτων ἐπινενοημένας διελέγχων ψευδολογίας. 2 ἄκουε δ' οὖν καὶ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα γράφοντος· »διὰ τοῦτο καὶ παρ' ἑαυτοῖς ἀσύμφωνοι γεγόνασιν, ἀσυστάτου γνώμης ἀντιποιούμενοι. ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς τούτων ἀγέλης Ἀπελλῆς μέν, ὁ τὴν πολιτείαν σεμνυνόμενος καὶ τὸ γῆρας, μίαν ἀρχὴν ὁμολογεῖ, τὰς δὲ προφητείας ἐξ ἀντικειμένου λέγει πνεύματος, πειθόμενος ἀποφθέγμασι παρθένου δαιμονώσης, ὄνομα Φιλουμένης· 3 ἕτεροι δὲ καθὼς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ναύτης Μαρκίων, δύο ἀρχὰς εἰσηγοῦνται· ἀφ' ὧν εἰσιν Ποτῖτός τε καὶ Βασιλικός. 4 καὶ οὗτοι μὲν κατακολουθήσαντες τῷ Ποντικῷ λύκῳ καὶ μὴ εὑρίσκοντες τὴν διαίρεσιν τῶν πραγμάτων, ὡς οὐδ' ἐκεῖνος, ἐπὶ τὴν εὐχέρειαν ἐτράποντο καὶ δύο ἀρχὰς ἀπεφήναντο ψιλῶς καὶ ἀναποδείκτως· ἄλλοι δὲ πάλιν ἀπ' αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ἐξοκείλαντες, οὐ μόνον δύο, ἀλλὰ καὶ τρεῖς ὑποτίθενται φύσεις· ὧν ἐστιν ἀρχηγὸς καὶ προστάτης Συνέρως, καθὼς οἱ τὸ διδασκαλεῖον αὐτοῦ προβαλλόμενοι λέγουσιν». 5 γράφει δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς ὡς καὶ εἰς λόγους ἐληλύθει τῷ Ἀπελλῇ, φάσκων οὕτως· »ὁ γὰρ γέρων Ἀπελλῆς συμμίξας ἡμῖν, πολλὰ μὲν κακῶς λέγων ἠλέγχθη· ὅθεν καὶ ἔφασκεν μὴ δεῖν ὅλως ἐξετάζειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ' ἕκαστον, ὡς πεπίστευκεν, διαμένειν· σωθήσεσθαι γὰρ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἠλπικότας ἀπεφαίνετο, μόνον ἐὰν ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς εὑρίσκωνται· τὸ δὲ πάντων ἀσαφέστατον ἐδογματίζετο αὐτῷ πρᾶγμα, καθὼς προειρήκαμεν, τὸ περὶ θεοῦ. ἔλεγεν μὲν γὰρ μίαν ἀρχὴν καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος». 6 εἶτα προθεὶς αὐτοῦ πᾶσαν τὴν δόξαν, ἐπιφέρει φάσκων· »λέγοντος δὲ πρὸς αὐτόν· «πόθεν ἡ ἀπόδειξις αὕτη σοι, ἢ πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν μίαν ἀρχήν; φράσον ἡμῖν», ἔφη τὰς μὲν προφητείας ἑαυτὰς ἐλέγχειν διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ὅλως ἀληθὲς εἰρηκέναι· ἀσύμφωνοι γὰρ ὑπάρχουσι καὶ ψευδεῖς καὶ ἑαυταῖς ἀντικείμεναι. τὸ δὲ πῶς ἐστιν μία ἀρχή, μὴ γινώσκειν ἔλεγεν, οὕτως δὲ κινεῖσθαι μόνον. 7 εἶτ' ἐπομοσαμένου μου τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, ὤμνυεν ἀληθεύων λέγειν μὴ ἐπίστασθαι πῶς εἷς ἐστιν ἀγένητος θεός, τοῦτο δὲ πιστεύειν. ἐγὼ δὲ γελάσας κατέγνων αὐτοῦ, διότι διδάσκαλος εἶναι λέγων, οὐκ ᾔδει τὸ διδασκόμενον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κρατύνειν». 8 ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ δὲ συγγράμματι Καλλιστίωνι προσφωνῶν ὁ αὐτὸς μεμαθητεῦσθαι ἐπὶ Ῥώμης Τατιανῷ ἑαυτὸν ὁμολογεῖ· φησὶν δὲ καὶ ἐσπουδάσθαι τῷ Τατιανῷ Προβλημάτων βιβλίον· δι' ὧν τὸ ἀσαφὲς καὶ ἐπικεκρυμμένον τῶν θείων γραφῶν παραστήσειν ὑποσχομένου τοῦ Τατιανοῦ, αὐτὸς ὁ Ῥόδων ἐν ἰδίῳ συγγράμματι τὰς τῶν ἐκείνου προβλημάτων ἐπιλύσεις ἐκθήσεσθαι ἐπαγγέλλεται, φέρεται δὲ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν ἑξαήμερον ὑπόμνημα. 9 ὅ γέ τοι Ἀπελλῆς οὗτος μυρία κατὰ τοῦ Μωυσέως ἠσέβησεν νόμου, διὰ πλειόνων συγγραμμάτων τοὺς θείους βλασφημήσας λόγους εἰς ἔλεγχόν τε, ὥς γε δὴ ἐδόκει, καὶ ἀνατροπὴν αὐτῶν οὐ μικρὰν πεποιημένος σπουδήν. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν περὶ τούτων.

1 At this time Rhodo, a native of Asia, who had been instructed, as he himself states, by Tatian, with whom we have already become acquainted, having written several books, published among the rest one against the heresy of Marcion. He says that this heresy was divided in his time into various opinions; and while describing those who occasioned the division, he refutes accurately the falsehoods devised by each of them. 2 But hear what he writes: "Therefore also they disagree among themselves, maintaining an inconsistent opinion. For Apelles, one of the herd, priding himself on his manner of life and his age, acknowledges one principle, but says that the prophecies are from an opposing spirit, being led to this view by the responses of a maiden by name Philumene, who was possessed by a demon. 3 But others, among whom are Potitus and Basilicus, hold to two principles, as does the mariner Marcion himself. 4 These following the wolf of Pontus, and, like him, unable to fathom the division of things, became reckless, and without giving any proof asserted two principles. Others, again, drifting into a worse error, consider that there are not only two, but three natures. Of these, Syneros is the leader and chief, as those who defend his teaching say." 5 The same author writes that he engaged in conversation with Apelles. He speaks as follows: "For the old man Apelles, when conversing with us, was refuted in many things which he spoke falsely; whence also he said that it was not at all necessary to examine one's doctrine, but that each one should continue to hold what he believed. For he asserted that those who trusted in the Crucified would be saved, if only they were found doing good works. But as we have said before, his opinion concerning God was the most obscure of all. For he spoke of one principle, as also our doctrine does." 6 Then, after stating fully his own opinion, he adds: "When I said to him, Tell me how you know this or how can you assert that there is one principle, he replied that the prophecies refuted themselves, because they have said nothing true; for they are inconsistent, and false, and self-contradictory. But how there is one principle he said that he did not know, but that he was thus persuaded. 7 As I then adjured him to speak the truth, he swore that he did so when he said that he did not know how there is one unbegotten God, but that he believed it. Thereupon I laughed and reproved him because, though calling himself a teacher, he knew not how to confirm what he taught." 8 In the same work, addressing Callistio, the same writer acknowledges that he had been instructed at Rome by Tatian. And he says that a book of Problems had been prepared by Tatian, in which he promised to explain the obscure and hidden parts of the divine Scriptures. Rhodo himself promises to give in a work of his own solutions of Tatian's problems. There is also extant a Commentary of his on the Hexæmeron. 9 But this Apelles wrote many things, in an impious manner, of the law of Moses, blaspheming the divine words in many of his works, being, as it seemed, very zealous for their refutation and overthrow. So much concerning these.

Epiphanius:

Epiphanius, Panarion 44.1-7	Epiphanius, Panarion 44.1-7
Κατὰ Ἀπελληϊανῶν <κδ>, τῆς δὲ ἀκολουθίας <μδ>	Against Apelleans. Number 24, but forty-four of the series
1. Τοῦτον τὸν προειρημένον Λουκιανὸν διαδέχεται Ἀπελλῆς, οὐχ ὁ ἅγιος ἐκεῖνος ὁ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου συνιστώμενος, ἀλλ' ἕτερος ἐξ οὗπερ Ἀπελληϊανοί, ὢν καὶ αὐτὸς συσχολαστὴς αὐτοῦ Λουκιανοῦ καὶ μαθητὴς τοῦ προειρημένου Μαρκίωνος, ὡς ἐκ μιᾶς ῥίζης πολλῶν ἀκανθῶν ὑλομανήσασαι παραφυάδες. ἕτερα δὲ οὗτος παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους βούλεται δογματίζειν καὶ κατὰ μὲν τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ διδασκάλου ὁπλισάμενος ἑαυτὸν καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, εἰς τὸ συναγείρειν ἑαυτῷ καὶ αὐτὸς σχολὴν πεπλανημένων ἀνθρώπων, τὰ τοιαῦτα βούλεται δογματίζειν, φάσκων μὲν ὅτι οὐχ οὕτως, φησί, γεγένηται, ἀλλὰ πεπλάνηται Μαρκίων, ἵνα πανταχόθεν ἑαυτὴν ἐλέγχουσά τε ἡ ἄνοια καὶ ἡ ἀνομία ἐν ἑαυτῇ συντριβομένη φανήσεται καὶ καθ' ἑαυτῆς τὴν ἀνατροπὴν ἐπεγείρουσα, τῆς ἀληθείας ἀεὶ ἑδραίας οὔσης καὶ μὴ χρείαν ἐχούσης βοηθείας, ἀλλὰ αὐτοσυστάτου οὔσης καὶ παρὰ θεῷ τῷ ὄντως <ὄντι> ἀεὶ συνιστωμένης. Φάσκει γοῦν οὗτος ὁ προειρημένος Ἀπελλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶ τρεῖς ἀρχαὶ οὔτε δύο, ὡς τοῖς περὶ Λουκιανὸν καὶ Μαρκίωνα ἔδοξεν, ἀλλά, φησίν, εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς θεὸς καὶ μία ἀρχὴ καὶ μία δύναμις ἀκατονόμαστος· ᾧ ἑνὶ θεῷ ἤγουν μιᾷ ἀρχῇ οὐδὲν μεμέληται τῶν ἐνταῦθα ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ γεγενημένων, ἀλλὰ ὁ αὐτὸς ἅγιος ἄνωθεν θεὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς ἐποίησεν ἕνα ἄλλον θεόν· ὁ δὲ γενόμενος ἄλλος θεὸς ἔκτισε τὰ πάντα, οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. ἀπέβη δὲ οὐκ ἀγαθὸς καὶ τὰ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ γενόμενα, φησίν, οὐκ ἀγαθῶς εἰργασμένα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ φαύλην διάνοιαν τὰ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ * ἔκτισται. Τίς δὲ ἀνέξεται τῶν τοιούτων λόγων καὶ οὐ μᾶλλον καταγελάσειε τῆς τοιαύτης ματαιοπονίας; κατὰ γὰρ δύο τρόπους εὑρεθήσεται οὐχ ἁρμοδίως πράττων, χρώμενος τῇ τοιαύτῃ ὑπονοίᾳ. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πρὸς αὐτὸν ὡς πρὸς παρόντα ἐρῶ· λέγε μοι, ὦ οὗτος. δώσεις γάρ, ὦ Ἀπελλῆ, ἢ τὸν θεὸν ἄγνωστον τῶν μελλόντων πεποιηκότα θεὸν ὃν φάσκεις τὰ ποιήματα κακῶς δεδημιουργηκέναι, ἢ προγινώσκοντα μὲν ὅτι τοιοῦτος ὁ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κτιζόμενος θεὸς ἀποβήσεται, τούτου χάριν αὐτὸν πεποιηκέναι, ἵνα μὴ αἴτιος γένηται τῶν κακῶς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ δεδημιουργημένων. καὶ ἔσται ἐξ ἅπαντος ὁ ἄνω θεὸς αὐτὸς δημιουργός, ποιήσας τὸν ἕνα τὸν τὰ πάντα πεποιηκότα, καὶ ἔσται οὐκέτι αἴτιος ὁ τὰς κτίσεις πεποιηκώς, ἀλλὰ ὁ ἄνω θεὸς ὁ τὸν κτιστὴν ποιήσας καὶ ὢν αὐτὸς τῶν πάντων δημιουργός. 2. Χριστὸν δὲ ἥκειν φησὶν ἐπ' ἐσχάτων τῶν καιρῶν, υἱὸν ὄντα τοῦ ἄνω ἀγαθοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα ὡσαύτως ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν εἰς γνῶσιν αὐτοῦ ἐρχομένων, καὶ ἐλθόντα οὐ δοκήσει πεφηνέναι, ἀλλὰ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ σάρκα εἰληφέναι, οὐκ ἀπὸ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, ἀλλὰ ἀληθινὴν μὲν ἐσχηκέναι τὴν σάρκα καὶ σῶμα, οὔτε <δὲ> ἀπὸ σπέρματος ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀπὸ γυναικὸς παρθένου. ἀλλὰ ἔσχεν μὲν σάρκα ἀληθινήν, τούτῳ <δὲ> τῷ τρόπῳ· καί, φησίν, ἐν τῷ ἔρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπουρανίων ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν γῆν καὶ συνήγαγεν ἑαυτῷ ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων σῶμα. καὶ πῶς καὶ οὗτος οὐκ ἐπείγεται εἰς τὸ φωραθῆναι αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀνομίαν ἀκολουθοῦσαν ταῖς τῶν παλαιῶν Ἑλλήνων ποιητῶν περὶ τῆς κενοφωνίας ταύτης δόξαις; φάσκει γὰρ καὶ οὗτος, ὡς ἐκεῖνοι καὶ ἔτι ψυχροτέρως παρ' ἐκείνους λέγων, τὸν σωτῆρα ἑαυτῷ ὑποστήσασθαι τὸ σῶμα. ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ ξηροῦ τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ θερμοῦ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑγροῦ τὸ ὑγρὸν καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ψυχροῦ τὸ ψυχρὸν <λαβὼν> καὶ οὕτως πλάσας ἑαυτῷ σῶμα ἀληθινῶς πέφηνεν ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς τὴν ἄνω γνῶσιν, καταφρονεῖν τε τοῦ δημιουργοῦ καὶ ἀρνεῖσθαι αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα, ὑποδείξας ἡμῖν ἐν ποίᾳ γραφῇ ποῖά ἐστι τὰ φύσει ἐξ αὐτοῦ εἰρημένα καὶ ποῖά ἐστι τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ. «οὕτως γάρ, φησίν, ἔφη ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται· χρῶμαι γάρ, φησίν, ἀπὸ πάσης γραφῆς ἀναλέγων τὰ χρήσιμα». εἶτα, φησίν, ἔδωκεν ὁ Χριστὸς ἑαυτὸν παθεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ σώματι καὶ ἐσταυρώθη ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀνέστη ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἔδειξεν αὐτὴν τὴν σάρκα τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς. καὶ ἀναλύσας, φησίν, αὐτὴν τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν ἑαυτοῦ ἀπεμέρισε πάλιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν στοιχείων τὸ ἴδιον ἀποδούς, τὸ θερμὸν τῷ θερμῷ, τὸ ψυχρὸν τῷ ψυχρῷ, τὸ ξηρὸν τῷ ξηρῷ, τὸ ὑγρὸν τῷ ὑγρῷ· καὶ οὕτως διαλύσας ἀπ' αὐτοῦ πάλιν τὸ ἔνσαρκον σῶμα ἀνέπτη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, ὅθεν καὶ ἧκε. 3. Καὶ ὦ πολλῆς δραματουργίας τῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα λεγόντων, ὡς παντί τῳ σαφὲς εἴη μίμων μᾶλλον ἐργαστήριον ἤπερ ἐπαγγελίας ζωῆς ἢ συνέσεως χαρακτῆρα κεκτημένων. εἰ γὰρ ὅλως ἔλυεν αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα ὅπερ εἴληφε, τίνι τῷ λόγῳ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ κατεσκεύαζεν; εἰ δὲ κατεσκεύαζε διά τινα χρῆσιν, ἀπετέλεσε δὲ τὸ ἔργον τῆς χρήσεως, ἔδει καταλεῖψαι αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ γῇ, μάλιστα καθ' ὑμᾶς <τοῦ> τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τῆς σαρκὸς ἐλπίδος εἴδους μὴ χρείαν ἔχοντος τελειωθῆναι. ἀλλὰ ἀνέστησεν αὐτὸ πάλιν, ἵνα εἰς κάματον ἑαυτὸν μείζονα ἐμβάλοι, ἵνα μηδὲν ὠφελήσῃ, κατασκευάζων καὶ ἐν μνήματι ἀποτιθέμενος καὶ διαλύων καὶ μερίζων ἑκάστῳ τῶν στοιχείων ὅπερ παρ' αὐτοῦ εἴληφεν, ὡς εὐγνώμων χρεωφειλέτης. καὶ εἰ ὅλως ἑκάστῳ <τὸ ἴδιον> ἀπεδίδου, τουτέστιν τὸ ψυχρὸν τῷ ψυχρῷ καὶ τὸ θερμὸν τῷ θερμῷ, ἠδύνατο ταῦτα μὴ ὁρᾶσθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς τοῖς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ' οὐ μὴν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ξηρόν. πάντως γὰρ τὸ ξηρὸν σῶμά ἐστι, σὰρξ καὶ ὀστέα, καὶ τὸ ὑγρὸν πάντως ἰχῶρές εἰσι καὶ σὰρξ εἰς ὑγρότητα διαλυομένη· ἅτινα πάντως τοῖς ἀποστόλοις φανερώτατα ἀποτιθέμενος ἐσήμανεν, ὡς καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ὅτε ἐθάπτετο τὸ αὐτοῦ σῶμα κατηξιοῦτο Ἰωσὴφ ὁ ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθαίας ἐντυλίξαι αὐτὸ ἐν σινδόνι καὶ ἀποθέσθαι ἐν μνήματι. ἅμα δὲ καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες εἶχον ἰδεῖν ποῦ κατελείφθη τὰ λείψανα, ἵνα αὐτὰ τιμήσωσι διὰ μύρων καὶ ἀρωμάτων, ὡς τὸ πρῶτον. ἀλλ' οὐδαμοῦ τὸ ψεῦδος ὑμῶν τοῦτο δεδήλωται, ὦ Ἀπελληιανοί, ἀπὸ ἑνὸς τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων· οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν. ἀλλὰ τοὺς μὲν ἀοράτους ὁρατῶς εἶδον δύο ἄνδρας καὶ αὐτὸν εἰς οὐρανὸν ἀνερχόμενον καὶ ὑπὸ νεφέλης φωτεινῆς ὑπολαμβανόμενον, λείψανον δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐδαμοῦ καταλελειμμένον· οὐ γὰρ ἐχρῆν οὐδὲ ἐνεδέχετο. καὶ ψεύδεται Ἀπελλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ Ἀπελληιανοί. 4. Τὰ ὅμοια δὲ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ ἐπιστάτῃ Μαρκίωνι περί τε τῆς ἄλλης σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοίως ἐδογμάτισεν, φάσκων μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσαπερ * ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔδοξεν ὁμοίως δογματίζειν. ἀνατραπήσεται δὲ ὁ αὐτοῦ λογισμὸς λῆρός τις ὢν καὶ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον πεπλανημένος. οὔτε γὰρ ἰσχύσει σκότος ἔνθα τὸ φῶς παραφαίνεται οὔτε τὸ ψεῦδος σταθήσεται * οὔσης τῆς ἀληθείας. εἰ γὰρ ὅλως κέχρησαι ταῖς γραφαῖς, ὦ Ἀπελλῆ καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ σοῦ Ἀπελληιανοί, ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν γραφῶν εὑρεθήσεσθε ἐλεγχόμενοι· πρῶτον μέν, ὅτι κατ' εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὁ δὲ ποιήσας ἔφη «ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ' εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ' ὁμοίωσιν»· ὡς εἴ τις ἀπὸ τῆς σου πεπλανημένης αἱρέσεως ἐπιστρέψειε πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὡς ἀπὸ σκότους ἀποδράσας καὶ ἀπὸ νυκτὸς ἀναστὰς εὕροι ἂν τὸ φῶς αὐτῷ ἀνατεῖλαν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ γνώσεως ἡλίου δίκην καὶ ὑπὲρ ἥλιον. φανήσεται γὰρ παντί τῳ τὸν εὔλογον λογισμὸν κεκτημένῳ ὅτι ὁ εἰπών «ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον» ὁ θεός ἐστιν ὁ τῶν ὅλων πατήρ· συγκαλεῖται δὲ μεθ' ἑαυτοῦ τὸν ἀεὶ ὄντα σὺν αὐτῷ θεὸν Λόγον υἱὸν μονογενῆ, ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀνάρχως καὶ ἀχρόνως γεγεννημένον, ἅμα δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα τὸ οὐκ ἀλλότριον αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ. εἰ γὰρ ἄλλος ἦν ὁ πλάσας τὸν ἄνθρωπον τουτέστιν καὶ τὸν κόσμον κτίσας, ἄλλος δὲ ὁ ἄνω ἀγαθὸς θεὸς παρ' οὗ κατῆλθεν ὁ Χριστός, οὐκ ἂν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐλάμβανεν ἑαυτῷ σῶμα καὶ ἔπλασε, τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀνατυπῶν. ἀλλὰ δῆλον ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ δημιουργὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ κόσμου, ᾧ εἶπεν ὁ πατήρ «ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ' εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ' ὁμοίωσιν»· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἔργου συσταθήσεται φανερὸς γινόμενος ὁ τεχνίτης ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τότε τὸν ἄνθρωπον πεποιηκώς, πλάσας τε ἐκ γῆς τὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ σῶμα καὶ ποιήσας αὐτὸ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν. διὸ καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν ὁ ἅγιος Ἰωάννης ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ εὐαγγελίῳ λέγων ὅτι «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν· πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. εἰ δὲ <πάντα> ἐν αὐτῷ ἐγένετο καὶ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, αὐτὸς τότε τὸν Ἀδὰμ ἔπλασε καὶ αὐτὸς πάλιν τὸ σῶμα ἀπὸ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀνεπλάσατο καὶ τελείως τὴν πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ ἐνανθρώπησιν συνήνωσε τὴν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τότε πλασθεῖσαν καὶ νῦν ἐν ἑαυτῷ συνενωθεῖσαν. εἰ δὲ ἀλλοτρίαν ἐργασίαν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἔλαβε τοῦ κακῶς τὴν πλάσιν πλάσαντος καὶ κακοῦ ὑπάρχοντος κατὰ τὴν σοῦ διδασκαλίαν, καὶ εἰ ὅλως κέχρηται τοῖς κακοῖς ποιήμασιν οἷς ὁ κατὰ σὲ κακὸς ποιητὴς εἰργάσατο, ἄρα ἐπεμίγη τῇ κακίᾳ τοῦ ποιητοῦ χρήσει τε καὶ εὐεργεσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτοῦ εἰκόνι. ἀλλὰ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται. εἰ γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπησεν, οὐ μόνον σάρκα εἴληφεν ἀλλὰ καὶ ψυχήν. δῆλον γὰρ ἔσται τοῦτο· ἐπεὶ πόθεν ἔλεγεν «ἐξουσίαν ἔχω λαβεῖν τὴν ψυχήν μου καὶ θεῖναι αὐτήν»; τὴν πᾶσαν τοίνυν πραγματείαν ἀναδεξάμενος, τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ εἰκόνα, πᾶσαν † πραγματείαν ἀνεδέξατο, ἐν τῷ σώματι καὶ ψυχῇ ἐλθὼν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ἐν ὁποίοις ἅπασίν ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος. τούτων δὲ οὕτως τελεσθέντων ἐξ ἅπαντος ἠμαύρωταί σου τὸ δηλητήριον, καὶ ἔπεσέν σου ἡ στάσις ἡ ἀθεμελίωτος, μὴ ἔχουσα πῆξιν ἑδραιώματος ἀληθείας. 5. Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἃ βούλει λαμβάνεις ἀπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς καὶ ἃ βούλει καταλιμπάνεις, ἄρα γοῦν κριτὴς προεκάθισας, οὐχ ἑρμηνευτὴς τῶν νόμων ἀλλὰ ἐκλογεὺς τῶν οὐ κατὰ τὸν νοῦν σου γραφέντων, ἀλλὰ ὄντων μὲν ἀληθινῶν παρὰ σοὶ δὲ μεταποιηθέντων ψευδῶς κατὰ τὸν νοῦν τῆς σοῦ ἀπάτης καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ σοῦ ἠπατημένων. εἰ δὲ καὶ ὅλως κακὸς ποιητὴς τὰ ἐνταῦθα εἰργάσατο, φημὶ δὲ τὸν κόσμον, τίνος ἕνεκα ἦλθεν ὁ ἀπὸ ἀγαθοῦ πατρὸς εἰς τόνδε τὸν αἰῶνα; καὶ εἰ μὲν ἵνα σώσῃ ἀνθρώπους, ἄρα τῶν ἰδίων ἐπεμελήσατο καὶ οὐκέτι ἄλλος εἴη ὁ δημιουργός· εἰ δὲ οὐ τῶν ἰδίων προενόει, βούλεται δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις ἐπεμβαίνειν καὶ τὰ οὐκ ὄντα αὐτοῦ διασῴζειν, ἢ κόλαξ ἐστὶ τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις προσλιπαρῶν ἢ κενόδοξος, ἵνα κρείττων τοῦ κτιστοῦ φανῇ πρὸς τὰ ἀλλότρια ἃ διασῴζειν πειρᾶται, τῶν μὴ ἰδίων ἐφιέμενος, καὶ οὐκέτι ἔσται ἀληθινός· ἢ ὅτι μέτριός ἐστι κατὰ σέ, ὦ ἀγύρτα, καὶ μὴ ἔχων κτίσιν ἑαυτοῦ, τὰ ἀλλότρια ἐπιθυμῶν ταῦτα συλᾶν πειρᾶται, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἑαυτῷ περιποιούμενος ψυχὰς τὰς οὐκ οὔσας αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρός. εἰ δὲ αὐτοῦ μέν εἰσιν αἱ ψυχαὶ καὶ ἄνωθεν ἐλθοῦσαι φαίνονται, ἄρα εἰς ἀγαθὸν κόσμον ἀπεστάλησαν παρὰ τοῦ ἄνωθεν κατὰ σὲ ἀγαθοῦ θεοῦ καὶ οὐκ εἰς πονηρὸν ἔργον. εἰ δὲ ἀπεστάλησαν διά τινα μὲν χρῆσιν ἣν τάχα μυθοποιεῖς, εἰσελθοῦσαι δὲ μετέπεσον εἰς ἑτέραν, τουτέστιν ἵνα δίκαιόν τι πράξωσι, πονηρὸν δὲ εἰργάσαντο, ὀφθήσεται ὁ ἀποστείλας αὐτὰς πρόγνωσιν ἂν μὴ ἔχων· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὰς δι' ἕτερον καὶ ἕτερόν τι εὑρέθησαν ἐργασάμεναι. ἢ πάλιν ἐὰν εἴπῃς ὅτι οὐ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν ἐληλύθασιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ τυραννίδα τοῦ ἀφαρπάζοντος, ἄρα ἰσχυρός ἐστιν ὁ κτισθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θεοῦ πονηρὸς δημιουργὸς παρὰ τὸν ἀγαθὸν θεόν, ὅτι τὰ αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχοντα ἀφαρπάξας ἐχρήσατο. πόθεν δὲ οὐ διελεγχθήσῃ, αὐτοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος φάσκοντος ὅτι «ἐξουσίαν ἔχω τὴν ψυχήν μου θεῖναι καὶ λαβεῖν αὐτήν», ὡς αὐτοῦ μὲν ψυχὴν εἰληφότος καὶ θέντος καὶ πάλιν λαβόντος, ὡς οὐκ ἀλλοτρίαν εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ἑτέρου δημιουργοῦ. πάλιν δὲ εὑρεθήσεται ἀγαθὸν σῶμα φορῶν. οὐ γὰρ ἂν πεισθήσεται ἀγαθός τις χρῆσθαι πονηρῷ ἔργῳ, ἵνα μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ μετέχειν μέρους τοῦ πονηροῦ καὶ αὐτὸς χρανθήσεται τῇ τῆς ἐπιμίξεως πονηρίᾳ. εἰ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸ ἀνέστησε, λέγε μοι, τί ἵνα ποιήσῃ μετὰ ἀνάστασιν καὶ αὐτὸ πάλιν καταλέλοιπεν μερίσας τοῖς τέσσαρσι στοιχείοις, τῷ θερμῷ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τῷ ψυχρῷ τὸ ψυχρὸν καὶ τῷ ξηρῷ τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ τῷ ὑγρῷ τὸ ὑγρόν; εἰ γὰρ ἤγειρεν αὐτὸ ἵνα πάλιν αὐτὸ λύσῃ, ἄρα δραματουργίας τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο εἴη καὶ οὐκ ἀληθείας. ἤγειρεν δὲ αὐτὸ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ συμπαρέλαβεν ἑαυτῷ ὅπερ ἀνεπλάσατο εἰς ἑαυτόν, σῶμα σὺν ψυχῇ καὶ πάσῃ τῇ ἐνανθρωπήσει τελειοτάτως· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ συνεκάθισε κατὰ τὸν ἀποστολικὸν λόγον ὅτι «ὁ θεὸς ἤγειρε καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις», ὡς μαρτυροῦσιν οἱ δύο οἱ ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ ὀφθέντες τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, ὡς λέγουσιν «ἄνδρες Γαλιλαῖοι, τί ἑστήκατε ἀτενίζοντες εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν; οὗτος ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἀφ' ὑμῶν ἀναληφθεὶς εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν οὕτως ἐλεύσεται ὃν τρόπον ἐθεάσασθε αὐτὸν ἀναλαμβανόμενον». 6. καὶ ἵνα μὴ πάλιν δοθῇ σοι πρόφασις πονηρίας κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, μετὰ χρόνον πολὺν τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἀναλήψεως Στέφανος ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ μάρτυς λιθαζόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων «ἰδού, ὁρῶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἠνεῳγμένον καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἑστῶτα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός», ἵνα δείξῃ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα ἐν ἀληθείᾳ εἰς πνευματικὸν ἀναστὰν σὺν τῇ θεότητι τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὅλον εἰς πνευματικὸν ἑνωθὲν καὶ εἰς θεότητα συνηνωμένον. ἄνω δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ ἅγιον σῶμα σὺν τῇ θεότητι ὅλος θεός, εἷς υἱός, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ καθεζόμενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, ὡς ἔχει καὶ τὸ τοῦ Μάρκου εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τῶν ἄλλων εὐαγγελιστῶν «καὶ ἀνῆλθεν εἰς οὐρανοὺς καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός». καὶ πανταχόθεν διαπεσεῖταί σου καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ σοῦ πεπλανημένων ὁ ἀγύρτης λόγος. καὶ περὶ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως ἄκουε τοῦ ἀποστόλου λέγοντος ὅτι «δεῖ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν». εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἔμελλε τὸ θνητὸν ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν καὶ τὸ φθαρτὸν ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν, οὐκ ἂν ὁ ἀθάνατος θανεῖν ἦλθεν, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ πάθῃ καὶ κοιμηθεὶς τὸ τριήμερον ἀναστῇ καὶ συνανενέγκῃ ἐν ἑαυτῷ συνηνωμένον τῇ θεότητι καὶ τῇ αὐτοῦ δόξῃ, ἵνα ἐκ τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀγαθῆς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐνδημίας τὴν πᾶσαν ἐλπίδα κατάσχωμεν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, ὑποδεικνύων ἑαυτὸν τύπον ἡμῖν καὶ ἀρραβῶνα εἰς ἐλπίδα τῆς πάσης ζωῆς πραγματείας. 7. Τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων καὶ ῥηθέντων, τίς ἔτι μοι χρεία ἐστὶ κατατρίβεσθαι περὶ τούτου τοῦ ζωπύρου σφηκίου καὶ οὐδενὸς ὄντος, ἀνατροπῆς ἕνεκα ἢ ἄλλης τινὸς πραγματείας; ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ γὰρ τὸ κέντρον ἀπώλεσε καὶ † ἀπαράλλακτον αὐτοῦ τὸ τῆς πλάνης παραπεποιημένον δόγμα καὶ ἀγυρτῶδες δέδεικται. φασὶ γὰρ τὸ ὀδυνηρὸν σφηκίον, ὃ ζώπυρόν τινες κεκλήκασιν, ἔχειν μὲν κέντρον ἰοβόλον βραχύ, περιωδυνίαν πολλὴν οὐ κεκτημένον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ δύναμιν ἰοβόλον ὄν. ἐπὰν δέ τις διερχόμενος τὸν αὐτοῦ φωλεὸν ἢ καλιὰν καθέλοι – ἐν γὰρ θάμνοις βοτανῶν ποιεῖται καὶ κηρίου δίκην ἑαυτῷ σίμβλους τινάς, ἐν οἷς σίμβλοις ἐγκατατίθεται τὴν αὐτοῦ γονὴν καὶ ποιεῖται ἑαυτῷ τὰ γεννήματα – εἰ δέ τις διερχόμενος ῥάβδῳ ἢ ξύλῳ νύξας τὸ κηρίον ὡς ἔφην καταβάλοι, ἐξέρχεται θυμούμενον αὐτὸ δὴ τὸ δεινὸν μὲν βληχρὸν δὲ σφηκίον· καὶ ἐὰν εὕρῃ πέτραν πλησίον ἢ ξύλον, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐμπλήσαντος αὐτὸ θυμοῦ ῥοίζῳ μὲν ἐφίσταται καὶ ὁρμᾷ καὶ παίει τὴν πέτραν· καὶ τὴν μὲν πέτραν οὐδὲν ἀδικεῖ ἀλλὰ οὔτε τὸ ξύλον οὔτε μὴν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κἄν τε δάκοι, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ὀδύνην ὀλίγην· οὐδὲν δὲ ἀδικεῖ μάλιστα τὴν πέτραν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν κέντρον ἀπόλλυσι καὶ οὕτω φθείρεται, ἡ δὲ πέτρα οὐδὲν ἀδικηθήσεται ὑπὸ τοῦ τοιούτου. οὕτω καὶ αὕτη ἡ σφηκιώδης ζωπύρου δίκην μικρὰν ἔχουσα τὴν περιωδυνίαν ἀνατραπήσεται, τῇ πέτρᾳ συντυχοῦσα τουτέστιν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ τὸ κέντρον ἀπολέσασα. ταύτην δὲ διελθὼν ἐπὶ τὰς ἑτέρας πάλιν βαδιοῦμαι, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐλπίδα πιστεύων ὅτι τὸ ἐπάγγελμα ἐν θεῷ πληρωθήσεται.	1:1 The successor of this Lucian is Apelles—not the saint who is commended by the holy apostle but another person, the founder of the Apelleans. He too was the fellow-student of Lucian himself, and Marcion's disciple—like a thick growth of offshoots from a single root of many thorns! 1:2 Apelles likes to teach his doctrines differently than from the others and, arming himself against his own teacher and against the truth, propounds doctrines like the following for the sake of gathering his own school of misguided people. 1:3 This is not the way it was, he claims, but Marcion is wrong—to make it evident that stupidity refutes itself in every way, and that wickedness is crushed to bits within itself by raising up its refutation against itself—while the truth is always steadfast and in need of no assistance, but self-authenticating and always commended in the sight of the God who is truly God. 1:4 Now this Apelles and his school claim that there are neither three first principles, nor two, as Lucian and Marcion thought, but, he says, there is one good God, one first principle, and one power that cannot be named. Nothing here in this world is of any concern to this one God—or first principle, if you prefer. 1:5 However, this same holy and good God on high made one other God. And the God who was created as another God created all things—heaven, earth, and everything in the world. 1:6 But he proved not to be good, and his creatures not to be well made. Because of his inferior intelligence, his creatures have been badly created. 1:7 Who can put up with assertions like these and not laugh instead at this sort of wasted effort? It will be made evident in two ways that, in holding such an opinion, he is in the wrong. 1:8 And so I shall address him as though he were here: 'Tell me, Mister! You will either admit, Apelles, that God had no knowledge of the future when he created a God who, you claim, has made his creations badly—or else he foreknew that the God he was creating would turn out like that, and he made him for this reason, so as not to be responsible for his bad creations. 1:9 From every standpoint the God on high must himself be the demiurge, since he made the one God who has made everything. The God who has made the creatures cannot be responsible for them; this must be the God on high, who made the creator even though he himself is the demiurge of all things. 2:1 But he says that Christ, the son of the good God on high, has come in the last time, as has his Holy Spirit, for the salvation of those who come to the knowledge of him. 2:2 And at his coming he has not appeared (merely) in semblance, but has really taken flesh. Not from Mary the Virgin, but he has real flesh and a body—though neither from a man's seed nor from a virgin woman. 2:3 He did get real flesh, but in the following way. On his way from heaven he came to earth, says Apelles, and assembled his own body from the four elements. 2:4 And why is this man too not pressed, so that his wickedness may be detected in its following of the ancient Greek poets' beliefs about this nonsense? For he too claims, like them and even more foolishly, that the Saviour gave substance to his own body. 2:5 He took the dry part of it from the dry element, the warm part from the warm element, the wet part from the wet and the cool from the cool, and so fashioning his own body he has appeared in the world in reality and taught us the knowledge on high, 2:6 and to despise the demiurge and disown his works. And he showed us which sayings are actually his and in which scripture, and which come from the demiurge. 'Thus,' Apelles tells us, 'he said in the Gospel, Be ye able money-changers. For from all of scripture I select what is helpful and make use of it.' 2:7 Then, says Apelles, Christ allowed himself to suffer in that very body, was truly crucified and truly buried and truly arose, and showed that very flesh to his own disciples. 2:8 And he dissolved that very humanity of his, reapportioned its own property to each element and gave it back, warm to warm, cool to cool, dry to dry, wet to wet. And so, after again separating the body of flesh from himself, he soared away to the heaven from which he had come. 3:1 What a lot of theatre on the part of people who say such things—a clown act, as anyone can see, rather than a promise of life or the character of wisdom! 3:2 If Christ really destroyed the very body he had taken, why would he prepare it for himself in the first place? 3:3 But if he prepared it for some use but had finished using it, he should have left it in the ground—especially as, in your view, the sight of our hope, the resurrection of the flesh, need not be brought to pass. 3:4 But to give himself more trouble for nothing he raised it again—preparing it and yet laying it in a tomb, dissolving it and, like a conscientious debtor, distributing to each element the part he had taken from it. 3:5 And if he was really giving its own back to each element—that is, giving the cool part to the cool, the warm part to the warm—these things could not have been seen by his disciples. But this is not true of the body, which is dry! 3:6 For 'the dry' is surely a body, flesh and bones, and 'the wet' is surely the humours, and flesh dissolving into wetness. He surely indicated these things very plainly to the apostles when he was discarding them— 3:7 as, first of all, when his body was being buried Joseph of Arimathea was privileged to wrap it in a shroud and lay it in a tomb. 3:8 And the women too, at the same time, could see where the remains had been left, so that they could honour them with perfumes and fragrant oils, as (he had been honoured) at the first. 3:9 But this falsehood of yours is not revealed anywhere, you Apelleans, by any of the holy apostles, for it is not so. They were able to see the two invisible men, and saw himself ascending to heaven and received by a shining cloud, but they did not see his remains left anywhere—there was no need for that, and it was not possible. And Apelles, and his school of Apelleans, are lying. 4:1 About the other flesh and the rest he taught things similar to his master Marcion, claiming that there is no resurrection of the dead, and he saw fit likewise to hold all the other doctrines that Marcion used to teach in disparagement of earthly creatures. 4:2 But his reasoning will be demolished as a silly thing and wrong in every way. For darkness will not prevail where the light is glimpsed, nor will falsehood remain once the truth is visible. 4:3 If you use the scriptures at all, Apelles and your Apellean namesakes, you will find yourselves refuted from these very scriptures. 4:4 In the first place, God made man in the image of God; and the Maker of man said, 'Let us make man in our image and after our likeness.'—as though one were to return from your erring sect to the truth as though escaping darkness and arising from night, and find the light of the knowledge of God dawning on him like the sun and brighter. 4:5 For to anyone in his right mind it will be evident that the Person who said, 'Let us make man,' is God the Father of all. But to join him he is inviting the divine Word, the only-begotten Son who is ever with him, begotten of him without beginning and not in time—and at one and the same time his Holy Spirit, who is not foreign to him or to his own Son. 4:6 For if the God who fashioned man—that is, who also created the world—were different from the good God on high from whom Christ descended, Christ would not have taken a body for himself and fashioned it, thus patterning himself after the demiurge. 4:7 But it is plain that he himself, to whom the Father said, 'Let us make man in our image and after our likeness,' is the demiurge of man and the world. 4:8 And from the one work he will be plainly proved to be the workman, since this is he who fashioned man's body from earth then, and made it a living soul. 4:9 Thus St. John testified in the holy Gospel, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made in him, and were made by him, and apart from him was not anything made,' and the rest. 4:10 But if all things were made in him, and made by him, he himself formed Adam then. And in turn, he himself formed the body once more, from the Virgin Mary, patterned after himself, and perfectly united his entire humanity, which was formed by him then and which was now united with himself. 4:11 But suppose he took another person's work, one belonging to the God who had fashioned the first man badly and who, according to your teaching, is bad. And suppose that he made any use of the bad products which the bad maker, as you say, had produced. Then, by his use of them, by his doing them good, and by his own image, he was involved in the badness of their maker. But this is unacceptable. 4:12 For if he became incarnate, he has taken not only flesh but a soul as well. This must be plain. Otherwise, why did he say, 'I have power to take my soul and power to lay it down'? 4:13 Thus, in assuming the whole business, the thing the Demiurge called his 'image,' the Word assumed humanity in its entirety and came with body and soul, and everything that makes a man. 4:14 Now since these things were accomplished in this way, your poison has altogether lost its strength and your edifice without foundation has toppled, lacking the firmness of the support of the truth. 5:1 But if, besides, you take what you choose from sacred scripture and leave what you choose, you have set up as a judge—not as an interpreter of the laws, but as a culler out of things which were not written to suit you—things that are true, but but which in your teaching have been falsely altered to suit your deceit and the deceit of your dupes. 5:2 But if a bad maker really produced the things here, I mean the world, why did the emissary of the good Father come to such a world? And if it was to save human beings, then he was in charge of his own, and their demiurge can have been no one else. 5:3 And if he was not providing for his own, but wants to encroach on the domain of others and save what does not belong to him, then he is a parasite hovering around someone else's possessions. Or he is an egotist, out to get things that are not his, in order to appear better than their creator in the other person's possessions which he is trying to save. And thus he cannot be trustworthy. 5:4 Or, you tramp, from what you say he is a person of no consequence and, lacking his own creation, he covets the possessions of others and tries to hijack them by helping himself, from someone else's stock, to souls which do not belong to him and his Father. 5:5 If the souls are his, however, and it is evident that they have come from above, then they were sent from your good God on high into a good world, not into something which was poorly made. 5:6 But if they were sent to serve some purpose, of which you probably give a mythological account, and were diverted to another one on their arrival—if, in other words, they were sent to do something right but accomplished something wrong—it will be evident that the God who sent them had no foreknowledge. For he sent them for one purpose, and it turned out that they did something else. 5:7 Or again, if you say that they have not come by his will, but by the tyranny of the God who seizes them, then the inferior demiurge, the creation of the good God, is more powerful than the good God—since he snatched the good God's property from him and put it to his own use. 5:8 How can you escape refutation when the Saviour himself says, 'I have power to lay my soul down and to take it'—meaning that he himself has taken a soul, laid it down and taken it again, so that the soul is not foreign to him and the work of another creator? 5:9 And again, he will plainly have a good body. No one good can be induced to make use of evil work. Otherwise he will be contaminated himself from partaking of the evil, by the ill effect of the intermixture. 5:10 And tell me, what was the point of his abandoning his body again after its resurrection, even though he had raised it, and of apportioning to the four elements, warm to warm, cool to cool, dry to dry, wet to wet? 5:11 If he raised it in order to destroy it again, this must surely be stage business, not reality. But our Lord Jesus Christ raised the very thing which he had fashioned in his own image and took it with him, body with soul and all the manhood in its entirety. 5:12 For God gave him his seat as, in the words of the apostle, 'God raised him and made him sit with him in heavenly places'—as the two testify who appeared to the apostles in shining garments, 'Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, will some come in like manner as ye have seen him being taken up.' 6:1 And long after our Saviour's ascension—to deprive you of another excuse for mischief against the truth—when God's holy martyr Stephen was being stoned by the Jews he answered and said, 'Behold, I see heaven opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of the Father.' 6:2 This was to display the body itself, truly risen to the spiritual realm with the Godhead of the Only-begotten, wholly united with the spiritual and one with Godhead. 6:3 The sacred body itself is on high with the Godhead—altogether God, one Son, the Holy One of God seated at the Father’s right hand. As the Gospels of Mark and the other evangelists put it, 'And he ascended up to heaven and sat on the right hand of the Father.' And your and your dupes' trashy yarn will be a complete failure from every standpoint. 6:4 And of the resurrection of the dead, hear the apostle saying, 'this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.' 6:5 For unless the mortal (body) were to put on immortality and the corruptible (body) incorruption, the Immortal would not have come to die, so as to suffer, sleep the three days and rise in the mortal body, and thus take it up in himself, united with his Godhead and glory, allowing us, because of his good sojourn among us, truly to obtain all that we had hoped for—showing himself a pattern and a pledge for us, for the hope of the full realization of life. 7:1 Since these things are so and have been said, why should I waste more time, for refutation or anything else, on this wasp which, although it is inconsiderable, has a sting that smarts? It has destroyed its own sting, and the counterfeit doctrine of its error has been proved untenable and trashy. 7:2 For they say that the wasp with the painful sting which some have called the 'smarting wasp' has a short poisoned sting that cannot cause great pain, but is as poisonous as it is possible for it to be. 7:3 And whenever someone goes through (the weeds) and destroys its den or house—it makes hives and something like a honeycomb in bushy weeds, and in these hives deposits its seed and begets its offspring. But if someone going through breaks into the honeycomb with a staff or club and knocks it down, as I said, the formidable but feeble wasp itself comes out in a rage. 7:4 And if it finds a rock nearby, or a tree, from the rage that has filled it it sets on it buzzing, darts at it and stings it. And yet it can do no harm to the rock or the tree, and certainly not to the man even if it bites him, except to the extent of a little pain. 7:5 And least of all can it hurt the rock; it breaks its sting and dies, but the rock cannot be harmed by the likes of it. 7:6 Thus, like the smarting wasp, this wasp-like creature which can cause a little pain will be demolished by colliding with the rock, that is, with the truth, and breaking its sting. 7:7 But now that I have finished with this sect I am going to the others in turn, trusting, as my hope is in God, that by God’s inspiration my task will be accomplished.

Philastrius (Filastrius, Filaster):

Philastrius, Concerning Heresies 47

Philastrius, Concerning Heresies 47

Fuit Apelles discipulus eius, similia in quibusdam Marcioni praedicans, qui interrogatus a quibusdam quonam modo de fide sentiret respondit: Non mihi opus est discere a Marcione, ut duo Principia asseram coaeterna; ego enim Unum Principium esse praedico, quem Deum cognosco, qui Deus fecit angelos; fecit etiam alteram Virtutem, quem Deum scio esse secundum, qui et Virtus Dei est quae fecit mundum. Hic autem Deus qui fecit mundum, non est, inquit, bonus, ut ille qui fecit illum; subiectus autem est Deo illi, a quo et factus est iste, qui et nutui et iussioni et praeceptis paret illius in omnibus, cuius Ariani nunc consortes sunt atque fautores, sic praedicantes atque sentientes. Dicit autem Christum in carne apparuisse, non tamen sicut Valentinus de caelo carnem desumpsisse. Ait etiam post passionem non carnem surrexisse, sed de quatuor elementis — id est, de sicco, calido, umido, et frigido — accepisse Christum et in resurrectione iterum reddidisse elementis quae de mundo acceperat, eaque in terram dimisisse, ipsum in caelum sine carne ascendisse asserit. Sub Apostolis itaque hae fuerunt haereses per ordinem.

Apelles, preaching things similar to some things of Marcion, was a disciple of his; when he was interrogated by some people as to what he opined about the faith, he responded, "It is not my accomplishment to learn from Marcion, so as to assert two coeternal Principles; for I preach that there is One Principle, whom I recognize as God, which God made the angels; he also made the other Virtue, which I know to be a second God, who is also the Virtue of God, [the Virtue] which made the world. This God, moreover, who made the world is not good, he said, as that one who made him; he is, moreover, subject to that God, by whom this one was also made, who also obeys his will and command and precepts in all things, of whom the Arians are now consorts and admirers, thus preaching and opining. He said, moreover, that Christ appeared in flesh, not, as Valentinus, that he took on flesh from heaven. He said also that after the passion the flesh did not resurrect, but Christ accepted it from the four elements — that is, from dryness, heat, moisture, and cold — and in the resurrection gave it back again to the elements which he had accepted from the world, and dismissed them into the earth, and he asserted that he himself ascended into heaven without flesh. Thus under the apostles these were the heresies in order.

[Secret Alias]

If only NT scholars could think in Hebrew ...

I will not rehash my CORRECT understanding of this fiery angel except to say that I am at a disadvantage because I actually know what Jews believe and have always believed. I will just say that what is said in John agrees with "latter day" Marcionite thought (in truth Marcionite thought from the beginning it's just that the information from Tertullian is garbled divorced from its original context).

Apelles was just the first historical Marcionite who happened to be brought to Rome (or somewhere normative Christians gathered ) and was accused of straying from monarchian truths.

All that this demonstrates is that the Marcionite tradition with its Ishu was a typical outgrowth of Jewish mystical thought

Oops ...

[Secret Alias]

I am sorry I couldn't resist. It would like having seven female virgins on an island never having seen a penis try to interpret a phallus:

Apelles makes I know not which glorious angel of the higher God, whom he calls fiery, into the creator and God of the law and Israel.

Do people have a fucking clue about eshdat lamo? Of course not that's why people who have no clue about the living tradition of Israel will never, ever, ever figure out their own (Christian) tradition. How can it not be obvious what Apelles is saying? How is is possible? Anyway that's enough for now ...

[iskander]

Tradition:
http://www.rabbimintz.com/2010/02/parsh ... aberachah/
“Black fire on top of white fire. When writing a sefer Torah, there are specific halachot regarding the formation of the letters and specific halachot regarding the spaces that need to be kept between each letter. If one letter touches another letter or there is an inadequate margin on each column, the Torah is not kosher. The white fire refers to the importance of the empty space, space where letters are not allowed to be written.

eshdat lamo
http://stephanhuller.blogspot.co.uk/200 ... -lamo.html

Vezot HaBerachah
http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp? ... id&id=5806


"R. Yohanan said: Anyone who wishes to engage in Torah study should view himself as if he were standing amidst fire. Thus it says: a fiery law to them (Deut. 33:2)." Thus, it is not just the Torah per se that is on fire, but also the activity of studying Torah is intense and incendiary.
http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploa ... 2_fire.pdf

[Secret Alias]

The point is that Marcionism = Judaism

[iskander]

Let Giuseppe know.

[Giuseppe]

Let Giuseppe know.

If Marcionism is Judaism, then Hyeronimus Bosch would be a pious Jew:



Contradiction.

[RParvus]

Hi Ben,

April Deconick’s article first came to my attention via Neil Godfrey’s Vridar blogpost for 12-11-2013, “The Devil’s Father and Gnostic hints in the Gospel of John.” Upon reading these I sent an email to Deconick explaining why I think Apelles should be considered a good candidate for author of GJohn. In her email reply she wrote:

“Thank you for your note and work on the Fourth Gospel. I am clearly in the camp that this text was written by someone who was an early Gnostic, although his system does not align with any known system. It is closest to Cerinthus' view, and appears to be a blend of Simonianism and early Christian views about Jesus. These views were carried on and developed by Valentinus and company and also impacted the growth of a Christian form of Sethianism. The problem with the Marcion hypothesis (which was tried in the 1800s) is that the Johannine author still ties creation and the cosmos to the upper deity, a kind of "good" YHWH who is the father of Jesus. At any rate, this is my thinking so far. I have two articles that will be coming out this year on my views on John. I will post about them when they are published. You might be interested.”

I wrote back pointing out, among other things, that:

“Apelles was an EX-Marcionite and that he rejected many of the main tenets of his former teacher. And Apelles did ‘tie creation and the cosmos to the upper deity’ in a way that Marcion did not. According to Apelles there is one supreme God and the world was created by a good and glorious angel of his with the best of intentions but who, unfortunately, produced an imperfect product.”

I recommended that she give Apelles a second look. Since then there has been no further correspondence between us on the subject.

If anyone is interested, I have also written a Vridar post (“Is Paul the Beloved Disciple?”, posted 8-23-2012 on Vridar) that attempts to mesh my Apellean proposal for authorship of GJohn with a proposal made by Michael Goulder about twenty years ago.

Roger Parvus