Apollos - Apelles

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Aleph One
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Aleph One »

I guess I'll just say first that this is a reeeally interesting thread to me with many swirling tangents and angles; especially the diversity in 'source disciplines' (for lack of any better way to describe it :| ...I mean e.g. literary vs. historical vs. linguistic evidencing) is nice b/c you get multiple unique paths around a single discussion topic. Good read! Anyway, these came up while I read through:
Peter Kirby wrote:I regard the Apocalypse according to John as a seminal text in early Christianity. In it we find the purest form of the idea of 7 letters to 7 churches, embedded in the proper context of the number symbolism of the Apocalypse, completely absent from the letters attributed to Paul and Ignatius. Thus we can take the author of the Muratorian Canon very seriously when he avers that the letters of Paul were modeled, as a collection, after the Apocalypse.
So if this line of thinking were true, would Paul's letters have to be later than orthodoxy would now have it (i.e. the 50's)? I'm asking that because that Apocalypse must be after at least the first temple-war of 70 CE right? Unfortunately, my knowledge of any specific details, either in support of or against the book's post-70 birthdate, is woefully lacking, so I'm just going with probable-dates I see given for its composition (90 CE?). But if all the Pauline epistles do indeed use John's Apocalypse as a source, does that mean they are actually from from, even, the second century?.. Would that mean they postdate one or more of the gospels as well?
Stephan Huller wrote:Jesus (Eeshu) is just a preservation of the original (secret) god of Israel.
The discussion around this stuff got me wondering about the not-yet-revealed secret name of the Daniel 'Son of Man', and the (IIRC) magical pass-phrases required through the heavens in the Ascension of Isiah, and possible connection back to Stephan's submission above, and the whole Jewish concept of a Unspeakable true name of God. It's hard not to think of the popularity to this day of Christ as one's 'personal savior', and the obvious Christian appeal of forging a personal relationship with God (via Jesus). Could there be something to Christianity (in it's roots) as the taking of that mystical first-name relationship between the People and their God OUT of the Holy-of-Holies, and into the soul of each individual? And all-the-more-so if the Temple itself isn't even any longer in existence, of course!

Thanks to anyone who takes time to respond :thumbup:
Bingo
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:08 am

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Bingo »

Aleph One wrote:I guess I'll just say first that this is a reeeally interesting thread to me ... Good read!
Yep. Despite what others may say - Stephan does have his moments of clarity. :D

Thanks Stephan.

… and Peter.
Bingo
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:08 am

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Bingo »

Aleph One wrote:... the whole Jewish concept of a Unspeakable true name of God.
You might want to consider the theory proffered by Mark S. Smith et al., which holds that the original god of Israel was a benevolent father-god named “El.” The theory asserts that “El” was El’s proper name, and that “Yahweh” was the proper name of a second god from a second tradition.

The theory asserts that these two gods conflated over time, and that the “sacred name” motif was invented later to conceal the fact that these were originally two separate gods. By deeming God’s name ‘unpronounceable’ one could dodge the issue completely.

“El is the god of Israel.”
– Genesis 33:20

“Thou shalt not make fun of the name ‘Yahweh’”
– Exodus 20:7
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Peter Kirby »

Aleph One wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:I regard the Apocalypse according to John as a seminal text in early Christianity. In it we find the purest form of the idea of 7 letters to 7 churches, embedded in the proper context of the number symbolism of the Apocalypse, completely absent from the letters attributed to Paul and Ignatius. Thus we can take the author of the Muratorian Canon very seriously when he avers that the letters of Paul were modeled, as a collection, after the Apocalypse.
So if this line of thinking were true, would Paul's letters have to be later than orthodoxy would now have it (i.e. the 50's)? I'm asking that because that Apocalypse must be after at least the first temple-war of 70 CE right? Unfortunately, my knowledge of any specific details, either in support of or against the book's post-70 birthdate, is woefully lacking, so I'm just going with probable-dates I see given for its composition (90 CE?). But if all the Pauline epistles do indeed use John's Apocalypse as a source, does that mean they are actually from from, even, the second century?.. Would that mean they postdate one or more of the gospels as well?
It is indeed a startling testimony. But perhaps it is easier for us to posit that the first publication of Paul's letters occurred after the publication of the Apocalypse of John but that some fragments of this publication may have included genuine letters of Paul (2 Cor 8, 2 Cor 9, Philippians 4:10-20, Philemon, possibly a treatise lying behind Romans or a church order lying behind 1 Corinthians, or indeed each of those in letter form, possibly Galatians, possibly 1 Thessalonians, etc.).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Apollos - Digression on Cerinthus

Post by billd89 »

No, Apollos (of Aquila & Pricilla, c.55 AD) isn't Apelles.
Apollos is an absurdly common name: no need to conflate multiple variant spellings to imagine a single person in decades of history.

I try to sort out the names & dates. Caveat lector! This is only my best effort, subject to change.

I presume Theudas went to Alexandria (c.60 AD?) after 'hearing Paul'; he should have been a contemporary of Apollos, or perhaps a bit later (c.70 AD). But "Gnostic" Theudas and Apollos are never connected, are they? Therefore Apollos is older, earlier.

Apollos, the assumed author of Epistle to the Hebrews, writes to a back-sliding Melchizedekian synagogue (presumably, in Alexandria) c.57 AD, to bolster the Christ message. (What was Theudas doing then?) 'Hebrews' dependence on Melchizedek was controversial - hence, excluded from Muratonian Canon - because the underlying Two God thesis had heretical/antinomian pre-Gnostic Jewish roots. Even if Christ is assimilated to Melchizedek's role as Savior, the Epistle was long considered unacceptable in the West. The foundational Jewish heresy was unspeakable, ignored: HOW did this Epistle make it into the Bible?!! It esp. brought in Jewish heretics as Xtian converts.

Meanwhile, "Gnostic" Cerinthus (c.25-90 AD?) is identified as a Jewish Christian (of Alexandrian origin, and/or education) and possibly studied under the Therapeutae (c.35 AD?), but more likely read/sang their works a generation after (c.60 AD). We are told he was active in Asia Minor (Ephesus), around the time of St. John (c.80 AD). And we must believe he eventually had a large and widesread gnostic cult following, since he figures large in the heresiarch pantheon. Some good pertinent theological info here.

I suppose if the Alexandrian Church repudiated his heresy (c.140 AD?) then his cult also must have persisted some time. Isnt there an (Ethiopian?) Coptic document 'Against Cerinthus' that turned up recently? **mental lapse, sorry** 'Cerinthus and the Alogi' etc. Alexandria was the hub of civilization, then. I doubt Cerinthus maintained a strong presence there - highly uncertain - but Bauer (1934) finds the enormous silence in Church History is telling; presume an early Gnostic movement developed in Alexandria from c.38 - 100 AD, and Gnostic followers do suggest origins, predecessors.

So also of Alexandria, the MAJOR Gnostics Basilides (c.125 AD) and Valentinus (c.135 AD) come abit later; they would have developed in the shadow of or in contradistinction to the Gospel of Cerinthus and his synagogue(s). Valentinus went to Rome; Basilides to Caesarea? Gnosticism exploded everywhere after 115 AD, but it was already fermenting after 70 AD.

I read Apollos (the abstract Christ) and Cerinthus (the personal Jesus) as a generation apart, age-wise. Cerinthus has an notable focus on the details of Jesus' life for a metropolitan Jewish-Christian presbyter c.75 AD, only a generation after Apollos? (Or perhaps that's his School's emphasis, instead?) And he is variously termed 'Syrian' - that's where his School went? Questions, there.

I also wonder about the (proto)Gnosticism of Cerinthus, as a minor rupture or mild disillusionment w/ contemporary Judaism (he held strict Mosaic beliefs). His messianic philosophy is christological, but his Gnosticism is not bleak, without the dark madness of post-117 AD Gnosticism. Again, the detailed 'Life of Jesus' focus in c.75 AD seems esp. noteworthy to me (accepting the Church Fathers' description of an enemy long dead).

Alexandrian-educated Cerinthus' Two God thesis also fits the Magharians/Therapeutae belief system, but tacks on Jesus bits. Interesting! He's an early adopter, to be sure: at the 'right place right time' and filling the gap.


My questions:
Was Apollos an unorthodox philosophical rabbi (c.45 AD), a Min?
Was Cerinthus an orthodox rabbi (c.70 AD) who turned Min?



Fun Fact: according to Armenian Ananius of Shirak c.600 AD, the celebration of Jesus' Birth on (old calendar Jan. 6 +12 =) December 25th was originally developed by Cerinthus.

Bonus Prize: Chadwick & Oulton's (1954) 2006 Alexandrian Christianity in pdf.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

More Thoughts on Cerinthus

Post by billd89 »

Cerinthus (c.20-90 AD?) is obscure.

Apostle John never met the False Apostle Cerinthus but they reportedly preached in the same area. In Asia Minor, 'quasi-Palestinian Judeo-Hellene' John (c.90 AD) battles Alexandrian Cerinthus (or his Followers?) for control of the Logos Mythos; 'Cerinthus' is logically at least 10-15 yrs older. When the 38 AD pogrom occurred, he should be a young man Age 20; that event would have mentally scarred him.

Cerinthus is called a False Apostle because (he obviously isn't, and) he works in the last decades of the Apostolic Age. He preaches a late form of Jewish Apocalyptic, addresses Jews, reveals Jewish Gnostic roots. I want to revise my earlier opinion on his Jesus focus: it seems negative. Cerinthus counters and denies Jesus divinity, holds an older Logos-focused ideology and only partly accepts a newer Christos doctrine. I suspect the (Alexandrian) Logos teaching of Cerinthus is eclipsed by the novel (Asia Minor) Jesus-Christos synthesis, and his historical emphasis on 'Jesus the Man' (75 AD) diminishes the Son of God line.

If Apollos had preached a Christos mythos in Egypt c.55 AD, they should be contemporaries. But Cerinthus seems both more Gnostic and Jewish (older, different: a more mainstream Alexandrian Jew?). While Apollos has a clear connection to Paul, Cerinthus is only vaguely - and unconvincingly - associated w/ any Gospel tradition. Some scholars say he used GMark, GMatt think others; perhaps he knew some form of the Quelle? Uncertain, but we may presume the Jesus Gospel tradition was NOT especially strong when/where Cerinthus was active.

I cannot fathom an older Judeo-Xtian voluntarily leaving his established school in Alexandria c.80 AD to proselytize in the field under normal conditions. 'Cerinthus' might be his Followers, in fact. Instead, Cerinthus should be a longer-term itinerant preacher like Paul, long departed from the great metropolis: a generation younger than and after Paul, migrating around Asia Minor 70-90 AD through a network of Alexandrian-influenced Jewish synagogues. But he has a cult-following of sorts, if he should be so noticed in Early Xtianity.

Epistle of the Apostles (c.160 AD, though likely older by intent) - which is possibly partly derived from Apocalyse of Elijah(c.45 AD) - recognizes Simon Magus (60 AD) and Cerinthus (c.75 AD?) as the great heretics and perverters of 'The Book.' Yet Origen doesn't know nor recognize Cerinthus/his Gospel, however. Presumably, Cerinthus was conflated with the Ebionites and thereby irrelevant by 240 AD? Odd omission.

Chas. E. Hill (2000) has Marcion(c.140 AD) profoundly influenced by Cerinthus, who was active 2 generations before Marcion. Conceivably, 'Followers of Marcion' had adapted and subsumed whatever remaining Xtian element(s) after Cerinthus in subsequent generations.

Myllykoski (2005) has Cerinthus (c.75 AD?) "nourished by the Synopic Gospel tradition" p.242; I'm not seeing that: a 'tradition' is by definition not novel and should be established two or more generations.
Post Reply