Apollos - Apelles

[Stephan Huller]

And what exactly is your point? Where does any of this lead?

[Stephan Huller]

Why not argue that Apollos was the god Apollos? That seems more likely doesn't it by your retarded etymological arguments? Why go the extra step to Apollonius? Paul met the god Apollos from Alexandria. There that's perfect.

[Leucius Charinus]

And what exactly is your point? Where does any of this lead?

Engaging with the OP "Apollo" (Greek Apollos) .... may be a transparent disguise for Apelles. It may also be a transparent disguise for Apollonius - for whom there is abundant ancient testimony. A teacher, healer, author of books and letters, and a reformer, who was supposedly contemporaneous with Paul.



LC

[Stephan Huller]

Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. Anything is possible when you will take any answer but the truth.

[Stephan Huller]

On a more interesting note. With regards to the 'fiery angel' of the Marcionites and Apelles this astute overview - https://books.google.com/books?id=4-mxA ... on&f=false

[Stephan Huller]

The "Fiery Angel"

The evaluation of the "fiery angel," the originator of the Law and Prophets, is especially difficult. Why is he distinguished from the creator-angel? In Apelles' systematization here, is he following the Bible, which assumes between the one God and his adversary the devil not only one but many angels? Apparently the former student of Marcion and now of Philomena wanted to see the demiurge neither as an antigod nor as a singular middle being between the good and the bad principle. Thus he divided the functions ascribed to the demiurge in Gnostic systems between two different angels. Harnack154 interprets theory one negatively but concedes that the relationship between this one and the world creator is unclear. According to Hippolytus, Apelles calls the world creator an angel and distinguishes him from the fiery and the evil angel and from Christ — pure errors for Harnack. Yet nowhere does it say that this "second angel fell away totally from the highest God."155 The remark about Christ as the fifth one is surely intended ironically, for Hippolytus obviously wants to make Apelles look ridiculous with "four Gods." Why should he make a mistake here by conceding the angel designation, when this contradicts his polemical interests? Hence it seems more accurate to evaluate negatively only the one angel who in the Philomenian-Apellian system is expressly characterized as the "evil one" or "originator of evil." The "fiery one" would then be, like the world-builder, less than God and incomplete, but not "evil," as in Marcion. The Letter to Flora, shows that the originator of the Law and the Prophets could be regarded quite positively in Gnostic circles; yet there he is not distinguished from the demiurge.156 This interpretation could be contested at most on the basis of Tertullian's polemical invectives against the Apellians, where the various angels are likewise brought into play. Nonetheless, the context is different there: Hippolytus and Pseudo-Tertullian had presented Apelles' teaching on God and creation; Tertullian in contrast, is mostly concerned with the corporeality of Christ and the resurrection of the flesh. In this connection the quotations below are cited:157

The Apellians despise the flesh, which that fiery chairperson of evil is supposed to have bound with the souls lured down.158

They call a certain angel famous who established the world and after the establishment is supposed to have allowed regret [paenitentiam] to come in.159

Apelles reports that the souls were lured out of their heavenly places with earthly food by the fiery angel, Israel's God and ours,160 who then shaped sinful flesh around them.161

They call the body bad, although according to Apelles it was created by a fiery being or angeU62 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.163

With little system, the anti-Apellian mixes the three originators: once he identifies the "fiery angel" with the "originator of evil" but three times with the judge of the world, whom he also calls a "famous" (inclitum) and "glorious" (gloriosum) angel, and twice with the "God of Israel." Thus here too the dominant impression is that both the creator-angel and the fiery angel have positive functions for Apelles, or at least cannot be simply equated with the "originator of evil" as their polemical opponent did (but only once!). Thus Hippolytus's more differentiated presentation is to be preferred to Tertullian's fuzzy one. If the former accurately reproduces Philomena and Apelles' teaching, then we have here an important difference compared to the strict dualism of the good and evil God in Marcion: neither the world nor the Jewish Bible have their origin in the principle of evil. It is true that they do not participate in God's goodness, but they are not bad from the start, either.

[Stephan Huller]

Yet the question still remains are we that far from the Marcion of Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Ephren, Eznik and the rest of the Eastern tradition in fact 'everyone' save Tertullian bits and pieces of Irenaeus and Hippolytus (late third century redactor?)

[Stuart]

The argument for Apelles works better internally, if you take the model that Marcion (or perhaps a Marcionite chronicler) was the author of 1 Corinthians, and Paul is his alter ego. In that scenario you could argue from the text that Marcion is naming a successor, a fellow teacher of the same caliber. The founder plants the successor waters. If we take the view that a chronicler is writing then Marcion has left the scene but the author is arguing against Apelles' views in favor of his interpretation of the older views of Marcion. The letter makes both are sect leaders (1 Corinthians 1:12), effectively of equal station, which again is echoed in verse 3:4-3:6. In fact the whole section 3:4-3:9 seems to be calling for unity of the (Marcionite?) church rather than splitting into a faction of Apelles (Apollos).

Acts of course is written by a Catholic, so would change the message of Apelles/Apollos to be that of Luke.

Its all speculative. But for the attested Marcionite text it is unusual for anyone to be equal with Paul. A salient feature of the Marcionite text is the absolute priority and authority of Paul. While in the Catholic Paul is a mere servant (δοῦλος) with coworkers, and calls himself the least of the Apostles. A very different picture.

I do think it is curious that Tertius' letter to Phoebe (Romans 16, likely an appendage of unknown origin), in verse 16:10 we are told to "Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ." This can be seen as possibly a reference to Appelles supposed rapprochement with the proto-Orthodox church. Interesting to think about.

[John T]

Do not learn the way of the Gentiles; do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven. Jer. 10:2.

The Marcionites are very strongly addicted to astrology. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.284.

In the scheme of Marcion,...the mystery of the Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke....On finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein Paul rebukes even apostles for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel), Marcion labors very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels that are published as genuine. Terullian (c. 207, W), 3.348

Those genuine published gospels?

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist....1John 4:2-3

Still, the spirit of Marcion antichrist lives on, two thousand years later. He must have made a compelling argument, too bad none of his works survived.

[Stephan Huller]

Strong suspicion Apelles might well be the lead figure in the Acts of Apollonius. The text survives in Greek and Latin. The timing is right - the age of Commodus. For some strange reason Apollonius is called 'Apollos' throughout. The figure of 'Apelles' is clearly more recent and is certainly one and the same with the later rebaptized martyr 'Apollos' of the Acts of Apollonius - i.e. "Apollos, otherwise known as Sakkeas." Both men were from Alexandria and underscore the lasting Marcionite association with that city. Ammonius Sakka is a close parallel too. Why were two Christians called 'sack cloth' or does it mean something else?