Typical pseudo-intellectual rationalizing nonsense. Let's start with this;
Apelles was an EX-Marcionite
Why is this true? Because of what some Church Fathers infer from a source that we no longer possess. Really? Is this reliable evidence? Look at the context of the statement that he embraced monarchianism. When asked he said he could explain why it was true just that it was. Not very convincing sorry.
Apelles was a Marcionite. A real living Marcionite.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
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.
For whatever it may be worth, I really think your idea is on to something. At least, it seems to explain more of the weird bits of the gospel than other proposals I have seen. The same goes for how your insights into Apelles seem to illuminate Ignatius. Excellent series overall.
Could we get a handle on why the 'ex' Marcionite is applicable. There is no compelling evidence for this, something I am sure an examination of the facts will bear out.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
And there is evidence I think that the Marcionite gospel began with a descent to Jerusalem just as we see in John. I am not arguing for a Marcionite 'John-gospel' but rather bits of John, the basic form of John (but certainly not the multiple year ministry) come from the Marcionite gospel.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
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
Is it possible that Apelles (or someone like them) contributed to or helped develop GJohn? perhaps after it was started as a Gnostic text? (or vice-versa?)
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Is it possible that Apelles (or someone like them)
Apelles = one person
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Just in case what - (s)he and Philumene were the first Christian lesbian couple?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
MrMacSon wrote:Is it possible that Apelles (or someone like them) contributed to or helped develop GJohn? perhaps after it was started as a Gnostic text? (or vice-versa?)
Roger Parvus argues that the gospel of John started as an Apellean gospel text (known as the Manifestations) and was edited by the proto-orthodox to nudge it into line with the current orthodoxy (of the middle of century II). April DeConick, IIUC, thinks pretty much the same thing, but without specifying Apelles (she leans toward some kind of Cerinthianism as the basis for the gospel of John).
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Roger Parvus argues that the gospel of John started as an Apellean gospel text (known as the Manifestations) and was edited by the proto-orthodox to nudge it into line with the current orthodoxy (of the middle of century II). April DeConick, IIUC, thinks pretty much the same thing, but without specifying Apelles (she leans toward some kind of Cerinthianism as the basis for the gospel of John).
Ben.
Yes, and 'the proto-orthodox' or Cerinthianism could include a gnostic dimension(?). Syncretism at work(?)
