Apollos - Apelles

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8040
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Apollos - Apelles

Post by Peter Kirby »

"Apollo" (Greek Apollos), who is often mentioned as a Pauline colleague (Acts 18:24; 19:1; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4, 5, 6, 22; 4:6; 16:12; Titus 3:13), may be a transparent disguise for Apelles, a disciple of Marcion who, however, struck out on his own, revising Marcionite theology in some respects.
- Robert Price, in The Amazing Colossal Apostle

The connection may be even more transparent than suggested:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3263641

Kilpatrick mentions witnesses to the form "Apelles" in both of the references in Acts 18:24, 19:1. He believes it is the original text.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by toejam »

Does Price himself go into this idea in any detail, or just in passing?
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8040
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Peter Kirby »

Not in this book.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

It's hard to know what to do with this one. There are instances were the two names are substituted (in Origen I think). But what do we do with this? Another parallel is the existence of a heretic named Hermogenes who allegedly fell away from Paul and a 'heretic' of the same name at the time of Theophilus (and later when Tertullian copied Theophilus's work he is supposed to have 'moved' to Carthage). But it is difficult to get from the first century to the late second century. Why is Paul referencing Apollos and Hermogenes if these men lived in the late second century?
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

It is also worth noting that Marcion is said to have lived at the time of the apostles and in the late second century. Similarly the apostle John is understood by Tertullian to have referenced 'Marcionites' according to the early Church Fathers. But again, what does any of this really mean? I don't have a clue.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8040
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Peter Kirby »

I'm inclined to reckon that the author of Acts may indeed have Apelles in view, while the author of the corpus Paulina may have some otherwise-unknown Apollo in mind. It is much easier to suppose that the Acts were composed after the time of Apelles the disciple of Marcion than it is to suppose that the Paulina were.

The near-complete disappearance of the companions of Paul in the Christian literature that survives might suggest the explanation that these companions were various leaders or founders of gnostic churches. They are given shout-outs in the text to secure their authority (e.g., in Romans 16, as Price also suggests). This is itself grudgingly acknowledged by Clement of Alexandria, who however only wants to mentions names that are not found in the New Testament (Glaucias and Theudas), or clearly disapproved in the NT (Simon Magus), thus not to give any legitimacy to the claims.

Clement, Stromata, 7.17, is the source (perhaps there are others) for Marcion being an old man and contemporary with the apostles:

For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the eider, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.

The editor of the ANF resolves the paradox of Simon the Samaritan being prior to Marcion in a footnote by supposing, reasonably, that the heretics are being listed in ascending order, thus giving the word "after" pretty much the actual meaning of "before," 'although,' he says, 'it does seem somewhat harsh'.

I tend to agree. I think Clement is basically saying that Marcion knew Simon (or at least was from the circle of the Simonians) and that Simon knew Peter, on analogy with the other two chains of "heretical apostolic succession," despite the awkward expression. This is basically what Irenaeus says but without the intervention of a little-known "Cerdon" that Irenaeus and Hippolytus talk about, briefly, as the teacher to Marcion.

So Marcion was from Simon Magus? And Mark was from Simon Peter? Like you say, it's hard to know what to do with things like this.

Noteworthy in this regard also is that Eusebius makes Mark the first bishop of Alexandria and Cerdon the third (H. E. IV. I and Chron, until the 12th year of Trajan).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

Let's consider an alternative suggestion. If Marutha and others (Clement) are correct and Marcion lived at the time of the apostles and claimed to be the 'head of the apostles' (in place of Peter) and further more if Eznik is correct that Marcion heard the unspeakable words Paul did - how far are we from identifying Marcion (viz 'Mark') as Paul anyway? Wouldn't that solve all the references in the Pauline writings? Wouldn't that solve almost everything? Similarly with respect to Hermogenes? Acts does what Acts does with all Pauline information (i.e. the dispute with Peter) - Acts distorts them into something completely warped and almost unrecognizable.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8040
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Peter Kirby »

The Old Latin prologue writes:

"Truly Marcion the heretic, when he had been disapproved by him because he supposed contrary things, was thrown out by John. He in truth carried writings or epistles sent to him from the brothers who were in Pontus, faithful in Christ Jesus our Lord."

If Marcion was the one who first published the letters of Paul, which were found in Pontus and "sent" with him to Ephesus, it becomes quite possible that he was also their author. But as a complete set, posing to be from another person, Paul the apostle, and given hoary antiquity, not as the actual occasional correspondence of Marcion.

Why?

1- This is the standard form of the story of the discovery of writings supposedly written long ago but which are actually pseudepigrapha.
2- It's hard to imagine anyone (and everyone!) forgetting that Marcion was Paul, if Marcion were Paul.
3- When people do seem to disguise the identity of Paul in other names, the decide on Saul, Simon the Samaritan, Simon Magus, and Simon Cleophas (but not Mark).

I'm not really convinced that Marcion authored any of the letters, though.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

Unfortunately the barbarous Latin isn't nearly as straightforward as that. There are countless suggestions on how it should be translated. It isn't clear who 'he' is in almost any of these lines. I take the 'those of Pontus' to be providing the information about 'Marcion' where 'Marcion' is taken to be a name but is really the survival of ancient Greek in Pontic Greek (and which survives among 'Christian' residents of the Pontus near the Black Sea and which still survives among the so-called Romeyka i.e. Greek residents who converted to Islam and remained in the Pontic region).

Since many of the Greek linguistic features among the residents from this region are generally recognized to go back to archaic Greek (i.e. preserving an older form of Greek than used in the New Testament) it has already been argued that the use of the genitive plural suffix -ίων (as opposed to -ων) is one such vestige from 'archaic Greek.' What do I mean by 'archaic Greek'?

Let's begin by noting that in Homeric Greek the genitive plural usually ends in -αων or -εων. For example, νυμφάων, rather than νυμφῶν. From Perseus:

Gen. plur.—(a) -ά_ων, the original form, occurs in Hom. (μουσά_ων,ἀγορά_ων). In Aeolic and Doric -ά_ων contracts to (b) -ᾶν (ἀγορᾶν). The Doric -ᾶν is found also in the choral songs of the drama (πετρᾶν rocks). (c) -έων, the Ionic form, appears in Homer, who usually makes it a single syllable by synizesis (60) as in βουλέωνν, from βουλή plan. -έων is from -ήων, Ionic for -ά_ων. (d) -ῶνin Hom. generally after vowels (κλισιῶν, from κλισίη hut).

This form eventually shifted to what is called 'New Ionian' demonstrated by the writings of Herodotus: Here the genitive plural of masculines and feminines ends in -έων; e.g. χωρέων, δεσποτέων.

In Karatsareas's study δεσποτιού is one of the earliest examples he makes reference to: Such forms occur widely in all the AMGr dialects but also in the Northern Greek (NGr) dialects of Lesbos/Kydonies and Samos that are spoken on or just off the west coast of the Asia Minor peninsula. Some examples of heteroclitic forms from the AMGr dialects are shown in boldface in (1)-(6) below:

1.ζ’ μυλιούτο τ̔ εκνέ ‘in the mill’s trough’ (Axó Cappadocian, MAVROCHALYVIDIS and KESISOGLOU 1960, p. 200; cf. Standard Modern Greek [SMGr] μύλου)
2.δεσποτιού το στράτα ‘the bishop’s way’ (Phloïtá Cappadocian, COSTAKIS 1962, p. 174; cf. SMGr δεσπότη)
3.ένα χτηνιού αγέλ ‘a herd of cows’ (Potámia Cappadocian, DAWKINS 1916, p. 456; cf. expected χτηνών)
4.τ’ αφεντίου του λόγος ‘his master’s word’ (Áno Amisós Pontic, LIANIDIS 2007 [1962], p. 26; cf. SMGr αφέντη)
5.σου παχτσ̑αδίου το σπίτι ‘in the garden house’ (Oenóe Pontic, LIANIDIS 2007 [1962], p. 214; cf. SMGr μπαχτσέ)
6.παπαριώ ρούχα ‘priests’ robes’ (Silliot, COSTAKIS 1968, p. 60; cf. SMGr παπάδων)

Karatsareas notes that heteroclitic forms of this type bear major historical significance. Their development constitutes one of the shared innovations in the light of which the modern AMGr dialects are shown to be related by descent from a common ancestor, a dialectal variety of Greek that was spoken in the greater area of inner Asia Minor before the predecessors of the modern dialects started developing idiosyncratically (KARATSAREAS 2011). Their occurrence in adjacent NGr dialects further suggests that neuter heteroclitic forms possibly emerged at a time before the split of the two dialect groups –AMGr and NGr.

My idea (which Karatsareas according to a conversation with one of the professors working with him studying the language of the Romeyka, agrees with) is that Pontic Greek 'mutated' the -έων genitive suffix into -ίων. Indeed the dialectic anomaly δεσποτιού or presumably δεσποτίων from the New Ionian genitive plural δεσποτέων. Again I am told that Karatsareas agrees with me (the work published under his name about 'Pontic Greek' apparently pre-dates the discovery of Romeyka Greek.

In other words, even in the second century when Papias is said to have received letters from the community of Christians in the Pontus about Μαρκίων, we should already assume that those writing the letters were speaking of a community of followers of 'Mark' rather than an individual named 'Marcion.'

This becomes even more obvious if we imagine that the letters took the form of a document entitled κατὰ Μαρκίων - that is, 'Against Marcion' according to latter Church Fathers but 'against the followers of Mark' acknowledging the existence of the Pontic dialect even at that period. The implication of this new understanding developed from Romeyka is that the so-called 'Marcionites' likely were the original tradition associated with the evangelist Mark. In other words, we should ignore Irenaeus's claims about a corruption of 'according to Luke' in the community (Luke was likely a deliberate corruption of the Marcionite gospel). The original so-called 'Marcionites' were 'those of Mark,' the first evangelist.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Apollos - Apelles

Post by Stephan Huller »

So then the original apostle was named Mark, Papias (an idiot according to Eusebius) heard about 'those of Mark' from those in the Pontic region and who were called Marcion according to the archaic Greek of the region (as opposed to Markon which would be the normal reference in Greek) and took it to be a name of a person rather than a reference to a group.
Post Reply