jakejonesiv

Roger’s thesis is that the author of the earliest version of the Ignatian epistles was a follower of Apelles, an erstwhile disciple of Marcion. Apelles should not be considered just another variety of Marcionite. When Apelles broke with Marcion he diverged on a number of doctrines: e.g. the nature of Christ’s flesh; the relation of the world-creator to the supreme God. He took parts of the Old Testament as authoritative, etc. Apelles sort of “split the difference” between Marcion and the proto-catholics. For example. Marcion’s Jesus was docetic, and the proto-catholic Jesus was the Incarnation in human flesh, born of Mary. Apelles proposed a real flesh Jesus, but the flesh was not born but composed of side-real material.

Roger starts out strong. He demonstrates that the author of the Ignatian letters could not have been proto-Catholic, since he considers Judaism to be false doctrines and worthless fables unable to impart God's grace. One should immediately suspect that the original letters arose within Marcionite circles. This of course has been noted before, but Roger takes it a step farther, and proposes that the author was a follower of Apelles (Marcion's erstwhile student) who held an even more severe opinion Judaism and the Jewish scriptures than Marcion. Then Roger demonstrates, quite rightly IMO, how a clumsy proto-Catholic Editor/Interpolator (E/I) attempted to mitigate, indeed undercut, this anti-Judaism doctrine by exempting the OT prophets.

Roger demonstrates that the anti-docetic passages in the Ignatians are indeed against the Marcionites. Those who see a Marcionite authorship of the letters have no trouble seeing this as the work of the proto-catholic editor/interpolator. Roger observes that if the author was Apellean, there is no need to invoke the E/I since docetism was one of the issues over which Apelles split with Marcion.

Then Roger attempts to identify the real author of the Ignatian letters. He argues that Theophorus and Peregrinus (of Lucian's "Death of Peregrinus") are one and the same. Roger makes a plausible case that the letters were written by Peregrinus during he Christian period (during which he expected to be martyred), approximately 145-150 CE, before his further adventures as a Cynic and cremating himself on a funeral pyre at the Olympic Games in 165. While this might be true, I don't see it as crucial to the case concerning the inauthenticity of the Iganatian epistles. Roger spends a number of pages to reconcile the itineraries of Peregrinus and Ignatius that I skip over. (By way of comparison, Dr. Hermann Detering sees Lucian’s „On the Death of Peregrinus” as a satire on Marcion. http://www.radikalkritik.de/islucians.pdf )

Roger then demonstrates that the proto-catholic E/I modified and interpolated the original letters into conformance with proto-catholic doctrine about 180 CE when the Ignatians receive their first external attestation by Irenaeus. Roger argues that the terminus ad quem and the date of the interpolations are approximately the same.


It was the E/I who inserted the name Ignatius into the letters. Ignatius was the name of an otherwise unrelated martyr mentioned by Polycarp. By inserting the name of an actual proto-Catholic martyr, the E/I disguised the real provenance of the letters and won acceptance for them in proto-Orthodox circles.

Roger attempts to identify the proto-Catholic E/I as Theophilus of Antioch, author of "Apologia to Autolycus." Again, this might be true, but IMO is not crucial to the overall case.

Roger then produces his complete reconstruction of the original letters and the work of the E/I in a very easy to read and understandable format.

Overall, this is a very worthwhile book that should be read by everyone interested in these studies. One should also be familiar with the work of Joseph Turmel (aka Henri Delafosse). On balance, I still favor Turmel's conclusions, although Roger's are very worthy.


This is not the case. The authenticity of the Ignatian corpus had long been questioned.

Walter Schmithals, once a student of R.Bultmann and teacher of Dr. H.Detering died on March 26, 2009 in Berlin. In his final essay, he joined sides with those who denied the authenticity of the Ignatian epistles. His article was published posthumously “Zu Ignatius von Antiochien,“ in ZAC 13 (2009) 181–203. (Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity). I was lucky enough to have Dr. Detering forward to me a pre-publication draft.

The obvious purpose of the Corpus Ignatianum is to establish the monepiscopate in the Roman church. This belies the traditional date.

Walter Schmithals dated the Corpus Ignatianum during the reign of Mark Aurel (161-180 AD). Schmithals arrived at the conclusion of a late date following the work of R. Joly, R.M. Hübner, and T. Lechne. Among other criteria, he arrived at the conclusion of inauthenticity based on terminology and a dependence on Noetus of Smyrna.

This effectively removes Ignatius as a pre-Marcionite witness to the PE. However, Schmithals work does not deal with the interpolations and thus falls short of Joseph Turmel (aka Henri Delafosse).

The traditional dating if 1 Clement is also entirely suspicious. Now, one does not have to date it as late as 160 CE to remove the objection that the proto-orthodox had the Pauline epistles before Marcion. A date in the late 130's or 140's would suffice for that.

The dating of 1 Clement is usually based on 1Clem 1:1, "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us." This is then assumed, by circular reasoning, to be an allusion to the alleged persecution of Christians in Rome under at the end of the reign of Domitian in 95 or 96 CE. The evidence for such a persecution is tenuous at best, and may have never happened. But the question must be asked, “Why Domitian? Why not some other persecution under another emperor such as Trajan?” The reason is quite simple and quite circular, Domitian is chosen because he was the Emperor when by Catholic Church reckoning, Saint Clement, was supposed to be the Bishop of Rome! But we know that this Clement never wrote the “epistle.” With that you lose you dating anchor.

But the discussion of which emperor and which persecutions are really a tempest in a teapot. No persecutions are mentioned in 1:1, only “misfortunes and hindrances” which are apologetic formula for personal or domestic hindrances.

The internal indications are that a long time, generations, have passed since the founding of the Roman church, 23:3, 44:2-3, 47:6, 63:3. It could as easily be dated to 50 years—or more—after the traditional date, which as we have seen is based on Christian Apologetics with a capital A.

Please note that 1 Clement is a sermon from the Diaspora synagogue that has been redacted by a proto-catholic Christian editor. It is way too long to be the letter it pretends to be. There are other indications that the document is not what ir pretends to be, and I will direct the interested reader to _1 Clement and the Ignatiana in Dutch Radical Criticism_
http://www.hermann-detering.de/Clem_eng.pdf

1 Clement only cites one Pauline epistle, and that is 1 Corinthians 1:12-13.

"Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?
Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties. Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, and of a man approved in their sight." 1 Clem 47:1-4.

The other mention of Paul in 1 Clement is a historically improbable description of his journeys. Robert Price has commented that it sounds like a high school student trying to bluff his way through an assignment he had not read.

“By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.” 1Clem 5:5-6.

That Paul was in bonds seven times is mentioned nowhere in the New Testament epistles or Acts. The rest is so vague, we can only guess what the redactor means. I would not imagine that a Roman writer (if indeed this was written in Rome) would think of Rome as the “farthest bounds of the west.” For such a person Rome would be the center. Perhaps the closest we can come is the Muratorian fragment that alleges that Paul went to Spain, and the redactor of 1 Clement thought Paul was assumed into heaven from there. Whatever the case, we are clearly not dealing with historical facts.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

RParvus

Stephan,

I think Turmel’s explanation of why the name ‘Ignatius” was chosen is correct. The interpolator did it to establish a tie between the doctored letters and the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians. In chapter 9 of that letter Polycarp spoke of three martyrs named Ignatius, Zozimus, and Rufus. The interpolator chose to make the first of these the author of the so-called Ignatians and thereby bring in Polycarp to vouch for them. So, in addition to the changes the interpolator made to the letter collection, he also made two to Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians.

Both additions to Polycarp’s letter were clumsily made. The first was the insertion at the beginning of the letter of the words “because you received the images of true love and sent on their way, as was your part, those men confined in holy bonds, which are the diadems of those who are truly chosen by God and our Lord.” The problem is that, in the Greek, the reason for Polycarp’s joy is introduced by a construction that is grammatically inconsistent from the one that appears later in the sentence: ”because of the firm root of your faith”. If you’re interested in the Greek particulars, I would refer you to an article by William Schoedel entitled “Polycarp’s Witness to Ignatius of Antioch” in the 1987 issue of “Vigiliae Christianae,” no. 47, pp. 1-10. Schoedel acknowledges that “the shift in construction seems harsh and suggests the secondary character of … precisely the section that contains the allusion to Ignatius and his companions” (p. 3). After discussing various ways to resolve the problem, Schoeldel ultimately decides that the best solution is to say that an early copyist goofed and that an emendation should be made to the text. He concludes the article by saying: “Defenders of the authenticity of Polycarp’s allusion to Ignatius and his companions in Phil. 1.1 may regret that any emendation, however modest, is required to save the text. It may be hoped, however, that a sufficiently natural explanation of the data has been given to alleviate their distress and that it will soften the doubts of others about the witness of Polycarp to Ignatius.” (Need I say that my distress was not alleviated!)

The second insertion made into Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians was chapter 13. And again the interpolator was careless, making Polycarp ask the Philippians if Ignatius had undergone martyrdom yet. The clumsiness of that question arises from the fact that in Polycarp’s authentic reference to an Ignatius (i.e. in chapter 9 of the letter) he appears to know that he had already suffered martyrdom. Scholars wondered how it was that Polycarp knew Ignatius was dead in chapter 9 but didn’t know it just four chapters later! The most commonly adopted solution to this difficulty is probably the one put forward by P.N. Harrison in his book “Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians.” Harrison proposed that the current letter was originally two separate letters written by Polycarp at different times. And that someone later stitched them together but, regretfully, the earlier letter was mistakenly put at the end.

Now, as I said above, I buy into Turmel’s explanation for where the interpolator found the name ‘Ignatius.’ But, that said, I think there may still be something to your suggestion that the name was chosen because of its meaning: ‘the fiery one.” Here’s why. Even if the name ‘Ignatius’ came from Polycarp’s letter, there is still the question of why the interpolator chose it instead of one of the other two martyrs – Zozimus and Rufus – that Polycarp mentioned. I argue in my book that the original author of the so-called Ignatians was Peregrinus about whom Lucian wrote his “On the Death of Peregrinus.” Although for a time Peregrinus was a Christian, he at some point abandoned Christianity (or was expelled from it) and became a Cynic philosopher. And he ended his life spectacularly by leaping onto a flaming pyre. So it seems quite appropriate that the interpolator would choose ‘Ignatius’ in preference to ‘Zozimus’ or ‘Rufus’ in light of the fiery departure from this life of the real author of the letters – Peregrinus.

I will add, by way of clarification, that in my identification of the real author of the letters as Peregrinus I part ways with Turmel. He held that the real author of the letters was someone named Theophorus, and that the interpolator added the words “Ignatius who is also” to the name “Theophorus.” My own position is that there was a double name in the original letters. If, as I hold, Peregrinus wrote the originals, it would be entirely in character if he identified himself by a second name. Lucian says that Peregrinus liked to adopt additional names. He adopted the name ‘Proteus’ apparently when he changed his affiliation from Christian to Cynic. And then later – when he decided to leap to his death on a flaming pyre – he appropriately adopted the name ‘Phoenix.’ The name ‘Peregrinus’ itself may be one of his adopted names. It means ‘wanderer’ and, as Lucian points out, when Peregrinus left Parium he viewed it as a banishment and undertook a life of wandering.

If Peregrinus was the real author and if his letters included an additional name adopted by him, both names would have needed replacing by the proto-Catholics. For, according to Lucian, Peregrinus was for a time very popular in some Christian circles. I think that a few years after the death of Peregrinus a proto-Catholic interpolator recognized how inspiring the letters could be to his brethren facing persecution by the state. But only if the identity of their apostate author was sufficiently erased from them. And this obviously would mean that neither of the two original names could remain in the letters.

So my guess is that the interpolator replaced “Peregrinus who is also Hagiophorus” with “Ignatius who is also Theophorus.” The name ‘Hagiophorus’ means “bearer of holy things.” The holy things that Peregrinus bore were his chains. In Maxwell Staniforth’s translation of the letters he rightly points out that “the curious pleasure which Ignatius takes in his chains recurs at nearly every mention of them in his letters.” And this would also explain the unusual reference to “bearing holy things” at the beginning of the letter to the Smyrnaens. I suspect the original described the Smyrnaens as “most pleasing to God and to Hagiophorius” i.e. to the bearer of holy things. Why were they most pleasing to the latter? Because of the warm reception they gave him and his chains “which you did not scorn and of which you were not ashamed.” (10:2). And, finally, note too how the interpolator of the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians describes Ignatius, Zozimus and Rufus in his first insertion as “those men confined in holy bonds, which are the diadems of those who are truly chosen by God and our Lord.” When it comes to what Ignatius was bearing, the emphasis is all on his chains, not – as the name ‘Theophorus’ would have it – on God.

Roger

stephan huller

Thanks Roger

I am just packing for a trip as I read this but it would seem that there is a lot of general agreement here about a relationship between Ignatius, Polycarp and Peregrinus. The particulars need to be sorted out of course but it is nice to see that we all seem to be on the same page to some degree (at least I think we are).

I will take more time to read this when I settle in at my new location. It seems you are well informed at least and it would seem to make my reading of your book a worthwhile endeavor. Thanks for taking the time to write all of this.

Stephan

DCHindley

According to Albert Schweitzer (Paul & His Interpreters):

The external attestation in the early literature of a Pauline collection of letters, which is in any case not too brilliant, is further reduced by the radicals. The Ignatian letters are held —as they also are by the Tübingen school —to be spurious; and they endeavour to bring down the first epistle of Clement from the time of Domitian to the middle of the second century. (128n1) If all this is admitted, the first attestation of the letters is that of Marcion! [pp 127-128]

Hermann Detering even acknowledges as much in "The Falsified Paul" (Der gefälschte Paulus: das Urchristentum im Zweilicht, 1995, E.T. by Darrell J. Doughty in Journal of Higher Criticism, Volume 10, No. 2, Fall 2003)

The case with regard to 1 Clement and the Ignatian letters is somewhat different [than that of the Pauline corpus] because the authenticity of these 'letters' was very contested for a long time in the past! In his Papstgeschichte (History of Bishops), J. Haller rightly calls attention to the fact that for a long time these letters were “regarded as unauthentic... Today one regards them as authentic, but how long can one do that? The price of such documents tends to rise and fall with the scholarly market...”

In fact, to confirm this one must only glance briefly at the fluctuating history of research for these letters. Surprisingly, the theologians of our grandfathers’ and great-grandfathers’ generations often show themselves to be far more critical than their descendents today. Not only 1 Clement, which because of its enormous length, that for a real letter was highly unusual, stirred up doubt among old-time scholars, the Ignatian letters also took on the smell of forgery very early.
...

The Protestants of the Reformation were among the first to suspect that the letters of the martyr-bishop, who carried out energetic propaganda for the office of the monarchial bishop on his way from Syria to Rome, were forgeries. They were joined later by most of the theologians of the [19th century] Tübingen School [i.e., the ones who accepted some of the letters of Paul as authentic to some extent] —
...

In any case, towards the end of the last [i.e., 19th] century there was a “conservative” turn, introduced by the investigations of the German scholar Th. Zahn and the Englishman J.B. Lightfoot, both of whom, with a great display of erudition, attempted to demonstrate the authenticity of the seven letters of the middle recension [published by Isaac Voss in 1646], without providing satisfactory answers, to be sure, for the decisive questions raised previously by those who contested their authenticity.

The protestant rejection of the Ignatians was initiated by the obvious RC dogma contained in the longer Greek recension. The identification of the middle recension in the latter half of the 17th century made it easier to accept these as authentic.

It was my understanding that the "Tübingen" School of German scholarship questioned some of the Pauline corpus, particularly the Pastorals, but generally accepted 3-5 as authentic, at least at the core. This, IMHO, should leave open the question of whether the Ignatian letters or 1 Clement were at least partially authentic, again at the core.

The "Ultra" Tübingen School (the Dutch Radicals) rejected all the Pauline corpus, and in the course of that rejection, they had to entirely reject the Ignatian corpus (the Middle recension in this case) and 1 Clement because they cite some of the Pauline corpus (Romans, etc) as authoritive.

Maybe I am wrong about whether the "legitimate" wing or the "radical" wing of the Tübingen School rejected them entirely or accepted there might be some sort of authentic core, but I do know they are said to have rejected them, and by my meager thinking process this make the radicals more likely to reject them whole cloth.

DCH

jakejonesiv

Dear DCHindley,

I am glad to see we have basic agreement. The authenticity of the Ignatian epistles were questionsed long before the Dutch Radicals (by William Dool etc), therefore the questioning of Iganatian inauthenticity preceded the Dutch Radical investigation into Pauline authenticity.

I think the Reformer's objections to to the Ignatian epistles were in part valid, of course mixed in with some other arguments that we from hindsight can dismiss now.

The monarchical episcopate is emphatically promoted in the letters, and this presupposes a later time of origin. In The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 8.2, we find a clear artifact of a latter time. It is a command to obey the church hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

"Wherever the Bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the Bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be secure and valid." This anachronism tips the hand, and the purpose, of the forger.

The journey of Ignatius from Antioch to Rome is a COPY CAT of the Pauline travel narrative. Both Paul and Ignatius are said to be in chains, but are free to visit churches along the way, writing Epsitles at their fancy to the faithful as away they go. This coincidence of unlikely events would suggest reason for caution. It makes no sense for Ignatius to have been sent to Rome after having been found guilty. It is of fiction, a plot device. the sea crossing from Troas to Philippi (Neapolis), is from Paul in in Acts 16:11, "From Troas we put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace, and the next day on to Neapolis".

The author has a Chrsitology too far advanced for the first decade of the second century. Ignatius speaks of "the blood of God"(Epistle to the Ephesians) and "the passion of my God,"(Epsitle to the Romans) which
language unabashedly makes Jesus the Theoanthropos of latter theology.

Damaging also to the case of authenticity is the fact that the so called letters were written together as a unit.

If the letters of Ignatius were collected only some time after they had been written, we have to ask in what way this collection was undertaken. The answer is that the letters were conceived from the start as a collection, as individual parts of a single whole.

See HDetering, http://www.radikalkritik.de/clem_engl.htm

Roger's book, which is the subject of this thread, powerfully demonstrates some interpolations. You probably should address that if you are going to argue for the authenticity of the middle recension.

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

RParvus

Thank you, Jake, for the summary you provided of the first six chapters. I thought I’d add, for the benefit of anyone who may be curious, what I cover in the itineraries section. In brief:

Peregrinus held a leadership position (deacon) in the church of Antioch but he was not there when the Roman equivalent of a warrant for his arrest was issued. He had left Antioch shortly before to attend to some unfinished business back in his hometown, Parium, which was situated on the Hellespont, north of Troas. His departure from Antioch occurred at a time of great internal discord in the church of Antioch and he may have been responsible for a big part of it.

The route Peregrinus took to Parium was by land and included a stopover and visit with the church of Philadelphia. When he reached Parium he was arrested. It is while he was being led back to Antioch under Roman military guard that he wrote the letters that later became – after reworking by a protoCatholic Christian – the letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

Peregrinus’ route back to Antioch went through Troas, Smyrna, and Ephesus. He wrote four letters at Smyrna, and then three at Ephesus while waiting to board ship for Antioch. What the protoCatholic interpolator did was turn the direction of travel around and made Antioch-to-Ephesus-to-Smyrna-to-Troas into the first part of the journey for ‘bishop Ignatius’ that, appropriately, had Rome as the intended final destination. As part of this change of itinerary the interpolator changed the addressees of two of the letters:

1. Peregrinus’ letter to the church of Antioch was turned into a letter of Ignatius to the church of Rome
2. The letter that Peregrinus, after hearing that peace had been restored in the Antiochene church, wrote to their newly installed bishop was turned into a letter to Polycarp.

Peregrinus was a publicity seeker, so it may have been he himself who arranged to have his letters collected. Lucian tells us that Peregrinus, later in his Cynic days, “sent letters to just about all the important towns, a sort of last will and testament plus suggestions and rulings.” And Lucian says he gave titles to those who delivered his precious letters: ‘Messengers from Death’ and ‘Couriers of the Grave.’ But we can see from the so-called Ignatian letters that Peregrinus used the same methods even earlier, when he was a Christian. For are not these letters “a sort of last will and testament plus suggestions and rulings?” And already in these letters he gives the titles “Couriers of God” and “Ambassadors of God” to his errand runners. And the purpose of all his letters is basically the same. As a Cynic he wanted to have as large a crowd as possible see his fiery self-immolation. As a Christian he wanted to get as many of his brethren as possible to go to Antioch to be the choir at his martyrdom: “Grant me nothing more than to be poured forth as a libation to God while there is still an altar ready, so that forming a choir in love you may sing to the Father in Jesus Christ.” Although he changed his religious affiliation, the man himself never changed.

Roger

DCHindley

Hi Jake,

You can call me Dave if you like. Unlike many here, I do not take these discussions personally, whether someone agrees with me or not.

I do not dispute that there were questions about the genuineness of the Ignatians that did not go away when the middle recension was established as preferable to the longer Greek recension. To be honest, I agree that even the middle recension still seem a bit too "convenient" in that they support an established church hierarchy of bishops and deacons. Even the Pauline pastorals' use of the terms bishop and elders do not imply a rigid organization, and are not out of line with the equivalent Hebrew term for bishop used in the DSS and the titles assumed by household and other voluntary associations of the general period. The Ignatians, though, promote a hierarchy of bishops and deacons that are mandated by God himself, but it is not clear to me why.

Personally, I think the strongest argument he has is how the letters might support an Apellean POV as opposed to some other POV, although I would like to see a more detailed exposition of what Apellean doctrine is and how it differs from Marcion's doctrine. I am also finding out a great deal about how Platonic concepts about the nature of the world and reality in general were being transformed in this period, and I think they need to be examined as well. "Oneness" of God, ditheism, "Good God", "first principals", "image", "invisible" etc only make sense if understood against the use of these technical terms in Platonism and Stoicism.

DCH

He abandoned Marcion’s ditheism, and returned to belief in one God.
“Now this Apelles and his school claim that there are not three first principles or
two, as Lucian and Marcion thought. He says there is one good God, one first
principle …”2 Apelles’ first principle, however, was not the creator of the visible
world. That distinction belonged to one of God’s angels, “a certain angel of great
renown … who had the spirit, and will, and power of Christ for such operations.”
3 This angel attempted to make the visible world in the image of the invisible,
but he did not succeed. His work was imperfect. Yet another angel, a fiery
angel, fell away completely from the supreme God and became the ruler of evil. It
was this fiery angel who—according to Apelles—led the Jews astray and was the
source of the falsehoods and fables that constitute the Law and the Prophets.4
(2) Apelles set aside Marcion’s docetism and replaced it with a doctrine peculiar
to himself. He held that Christ possessed truly human flesh, but it was not
obtained by means of a human birth: “They (Apelleans) assert it for a certain
principle, that a body without nativity is nothing to be astonished at … He
(Christ) borrowed, they say, his flesh from the stars, and from the substance of
the higher world.”5 In the previous chapter we saw how Theophorus’ ‘New Man’
concept, as applied to Christ, is apparently derived from I Corinthians XV.
According to Tertullian, the Apelleans used a verse from this same part of I
Corinthians to defend their teaching on Christ’s flesh: “The first man is of the
earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven” (I Cor. XV:47).6
(3) Although Apelles retained Marcion’s rejection of the Jewish Scriptures, his
position differed significantly from that of his former teacher. Marcion rejected
those writings as religiously irrelevant, whereas Apelles rejected their credibility
and trustworthiness. We will see in a moment how important this distinction is.
Most scholars of Marcionism, including the renowned Harnack, consider
Apelles to be just another variety of Marcionite. Tertullian judged otherwise:
“Returning thence (to Rome) after some years, he (Apelles) was in no way
improved save that he was no longer a Marcionite.”7 The doctrinal differences
between Apelles and Marcion are substantial. And since Apelles developed his
new tenets in opposition to those of Marcion, he should be viewed not as a Marcionite,
but as an opponent of Marcion.

RParvus

Dave,

Apelles is usually considered to be some kind of moderate Marcionite. In my opinion, that is inaccurate. He was an ex-Marcionite and, after his split from Marcion, he took up positions that were more in line with protoCatholicism than with Marcionism. The early record gives no indication regarding the duration of Apelles’ association with Marcion. It may have been relatively short. What we know is that at some point a rift developed between them, apparently caused by Apelles’ departure from Marcion’s rigorist teaching on celibacy. With a touch of sarcasm Tertullian says that “having lapsed in the flesh into the company of women,” (“On the Flesh” 6) Apelles “deserted Marcionite chastity and withdrew from the presence of his most holy master (Marcion) to Alexandria. Returning after some years, he was in no way improved except he was no longer a Marcionite.” (“Prescription” 7). It was not just that he was no longer on friendly terms with Marcion or disagreed with him on the single issue of celibacy. He decisively rejected several significant Marcionite teachings. As you know, he abandoned Marcion’s ditheism, returning to belief in one supreme God. He rejected Marcion’s docetism, emphatically insisting on the real and non-phantasmal nature of Christ’s body. From Marcion’s canon he retained only the Apostolicon, replacing his Gospel with one of his own. And although Apelles’ view of the Old Testament was in one way more negative than Marcion’s, Origen says that Apelles “did not entirely deny that the Law and the Prophets were of God.”

No complete exposition of Apelles’ system has survived. Tertullian devoted a treatise to the errors of Apelles and his sect but it is not extant. So the early record contains only enough information to allow a partial reconstruction of his teaching. We can say the following:

Although Apelles returned to belief in one supreme God, he taught that this God was not the immediate creator of the world: “Apelles concocted some kind of glorious angel of the higher God as the creator” (“Prescription” 34). The glorious angel created the world with the knowledge and approval of the supreme God; indeed his intent in creating it was to honor the supreme God. (Origen, Commentary on Titus: “Apelles … dominum hunc, qui mundum edidit, ad gloriam alterius ingeniti et boni eum construisse pronuntiat.”) And he had “the spirit and will and power of Christ” (Tertullian, ch. 8 of “On the flesh of Christ”) for his creative work. He attempted to create the world on the model of the higher world but, unfortunately, he missed the mark. Ashamed of the poor quality of his work, the angel asked the supreme God to send Christ into the world to remedy the situation. Thus, in the Apellean system the world is neither good nor evil; it is imperfect. It is “mingled with repentance because he (the creator angel) had not made it so perfectly as that superior world had been originated.” (The “Against all Heresies” of pseudo-Tertullian).

For mid-second century proto-orthodox Christianity it was especially one’s beliefs regarding the creator that determined whether one was tagged a heretic or not. It was essential to acknowledge the supreme God as the one responsible for creation, whether directly or through someone designated by him e.g. his Logos. It appears that Apelles’ teaching on this matter was close enough to proto-orthodox doctrine that he was able to escape condemnation by name for heresy – at least until after his death. Neither Justin, nor Irenaeus mention him or his followers. Tertullian is the first to condemn him by name. In contrast to the silence of Justin and Irenaeus, Tertullian names Apelles along with Marcion and Valentinus as the three “more prominent and better-known corruptors of the truth.” [“Prescription”. 30].

Apelles teaching on the nature of Christ’s body was also peculiar to himself. He held that the body of Christ was a true human body and not just a semblance or phantasm. But strangely enough and however contradictory it may seem, Apelles also taught that it was not a body derived from Mary or any other human being: “He (Christ) has not appeared in semblance at his coming, but has really taken flesh. Not from Mary the virgin, but he has real flesh and a body, though not from a man’s seed or a virgin woman.” (“Panarion” 44,2,2,). Christ’s body, said Apelles, was one he made for himself out of elements he borrowed from the starry regions in the course of his descent to this world. “He (Christ) borrowed … his flesh from the stars, and from the substances of the higher world” (“On the Flesh” 6). “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.” (Panarion, 44,2,3). To support this teaching Apelles may have appealed to 1 Corinthians : “The first man is of earth earthly; the second man is the Lord of heaven” – “On the Flesh” 8). However, its real source appears to have been a woman named Philumena, whom he regarded as a prophetess. “This man (Apelles) having first fallen, in the flesh, from the principles of Marcion into the company of women, and afterwards shipwrecked himself, in the spirit, on the virgin Philumena, proceeded from that time to preach that the body of Christ was of solid flesh, but without having been born” (“On the Flesh” 6). Philumena, in turn, claimed that the source of her information was a phantom (phantasma) who appeared to her “dressed as a boy and sometimes stated he was Christ, sometimes Paul.”

Philumena’s revelations may have also been the source for Apelles’ distinctive views in regard to the ascension of Jesus. According to Apelles, although Jesus truly suffered, died, and rose from the dead in a real-flesh body, at his ascension he did not go up into to heaven in it: “He (Christ) reinstated in heaven in spirit only.” [pseudo-Tertullian 6]. And “Apelles says Christ allowed himself to suffer in that very body, was truly crucified and truly buried and truly rose, and showed that very flesh to his own disciples… And thus, after again separating the body of flesh from himself, he soared away to the heaven from which he had come” (“Panarion” 44, 2, 7-8). To Epiphanius and, no doubt, to the proto-orthodox in general, this Apellean doctrine did not make sense: “And tell me, what was the point of his abandoning it (his body) again after the resurrection, even though he had raised it? …If he raised it to destroy it again, this is surely stage business, and not an honest act.” (Panarion 44, 5, 10). And what became of the body of the Apellean Jesus after his ascension? According to Apelles, Jesus returned the elements of his body to the sources from which he had borrowed them: “In the course of his ascent, he restored 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.” (ps-Tert). “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 wet, and dryness to what is dry. And in this condition he departed to the good Father, leaving the seed of life in the world for those who through his disciples should believe in him.” (“Refutation” 7, 26). And it would appear that in the Apellean scenario the disciples of Jesus witnessed his separation from his body, for Epiphanius reproaches the Apelleans for making that claim: “They (the disciples) 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.” (“Panarion” 44, 3, 9). The extant record, however, contains no description of what the ascending Jesus looked like without a body.

In connection with Apellean teaching on the nature of Christ’s body, it is important to note that Apelles also denied that there will be a future resurrection of the body: “He teaches the salvation of souls alone.” (pseudo-Tertullian). “He claimed that there is no resurrection of the dead.” (“Panarion” 44,4,1). So Jesus rose from the dead bodily—if only briefly – but no one else will! This combination of conflicting beliefs—that a real flesh Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and that there will be no future resurrection of the body, whether for the believers or unbelievers—is uniquely Apellean. To my knowledge, no other early Christian sect subscribed to it.

In regard to which writings Apelles accepted as authoritative, we know, first of all, that he had his own gospel. It probably drew in part from other gospels, for Hippolytus accuses Apelles of selecting from the Gospels whatever he pleases (“Refutation” 7,26)]. But a main source of Apelles’ gospel again seems to have been Philumena: “He (Apelles) has, besides, private but extraordinary lections of his own, which he calls ‘Manifestations’ of one Philumena, a girl whom he follows as a prophetess” (6) “He fastened on another woman, that very virgin Philumena already mentioned… and, misled by her influence, he wrote the ‘Manifestations’ which he learned from her.” (Prescr.6-7). That the ‘Manifestations’ was a gospel-like book can be gathered from the Pauline words Tertullian used to dismiss Philumena’s revelations: “To this angel of Philumena, the apostle will reply in tones like those in which he even then predicted him, saying ‘Although an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than that which we preached to you, let him be anathema’” (“On the Flesh” 6).

According to pseudo-Tertullian, the only part of the Scriptural canon that Apelles held in common with the proto-orthodox was the Paulines, but his version of these was that of Marcion: “He uses, too, only the apostle, but it is Marcion’s, that is to say, it is not complete.” In this passage the word “uses” (Latin: utitur) clearly shows that “apostle” refers to a written work, not a person. In the late second, early third century CE, “apostle” was used to designate the letters of Paul.

Perhaps the best known of Apelles’ doctrines was his rejection, in large part, of the Law and the Prophets on the grounds that they consisted of falsehoods and fables. Origen describes him as “that disciple of Marcion’s, who became the founder of a certain sect, and treated the writings of the Jews as fables.” ("Against Celsus" 5:54). Hippolytus writes: “He (Apelles) composed his treatises against the Law and the Prophets and attempts to abolish them as if they had spoken falsehoods.” ("Refutation of All Heresies," 10:16) Pseudo-Tertullian concurs: He (Apelles) “has his own books, which he has entitled Syllogisms, in which he seeks to prove that whatever Moses has written about God is not true, but is false” ("Against All Heresies" 6). Apelles taught that the source who inspired the Old Testament was an “opposing spirit.” If Rhodo can be believed, it was again Philumena who led him to this view (Hist Eccles. 5,13). The opposing spirit was called “the ruler of evil” (“On the Flesh” 8) by Apelles. And he described him as “fiery”–almost certainly a reference to the flame of the burning bush that Moses encountered on Mount Sinai. And this fiery angel who spoke to Moses duped him and the Jews into believing he was God: “Apelles concocted some kind of … god of the Law and of Israel, affirming him to be of fire.” (“Prescription”. 34).

As already noted, Apelles’ rejection of the Old Testament was significantly different from Marcion’s. First of all, Marcion attributed none of the Old Testament to the inspiration of his good Stranger God. Apelles, on the other hand, made distinctions. Epiphanius reproaches him for presuming to sit in judgment of Scripture, “taking what you choose from it, and leaving what you choose.” (44,5,1). Appealing to the agraphon “Be trusty moneychangers,” Apelles claimed that Christ (perhaps through Philumena?) “showed us which sayings are actually his and in which Scripture” (44,2,6). And Origen says that Apelles “did not entirely deny that the Law and the Prophets were of God.” Secondly, although for Marcion the Old Testament was religiously irrelevant since it was inspired by a god who was not the father of Jesus, he nevertheless viewed it as a true and trustworthy account of the creator demiurge’s dealings with the Jewish people. As Harnack says, “It is highly remarkable that Marcion acknowledged the Old Testament as a self-contained whole, assumed it had no adulterations, interpolations, or such, and did not even regard the book as false; instead he believed it to be trustworthy throughout.” (reference). He held that its prophecies had already been fulfilled by earlier historical figures or would be fulfilled when the Jewish warrior Messiah comes. To Apelles, on the other hand, “the Prophets refuted themselves, because they have said nothing true; for they are inconsistent, and false, and self-contradictory.” (Hist Eccles. 5,13,6). To Apelles, Judaism was largely fables and falsehoods.

Roger

RParvus

Dave,

As you know, I think the author of the Ignatians was Peregrinus and that he was an Apellean. And since Apelles was an ex-Marcionite, the presumption would be that – like the Marcionites -- the Apellean communities were set up with bishops, presbyters and deacons. That is to say, there is nothing in the early record to indicate that Apelles rejected the type of ecclesiastical offices in place not only in Marcion’s communities but probably also in those of the proto-Catholics. I think Sebastian Moll is right, when he writes in his “The Arch-Heretic Marcion” that “… we can still agree with Harnack that Marcion in all probability introduced these offices in his church himself, or, to be more precise, that he retained these offices when he broke with the Church. For it is far more likely that these offices were retained from the beginning than that the Marcionite church adopted any kind of ecclesial practice during the period of schism in which the churches openly fought with each other.” (p. 124).

But what might at first glance seem surprising is the emphasis Peregrinus puts on those offices. Notice first, however, that – with the possible exception of one interpolated verse in Romans – the obedience that Peregrinus counsels is with the local bishop, presbytery and deacons. He is not trying to get his readers to obey the bishop of Rome. It is local unity he is insisting on. And to me this again makes sense in an Apellean scenario. Centralized authority can be an effective defensive measure when a community feels threatened. The Apelleans were caught in the middle between two churches much larger than theirs. They were a minority both in regard to the Judaizers (which I identify as the ProtoCatholics) and in regard to their docetic opponents (which I identify as Marcionites). And as a newly formed sect their leaders were most likely the ones who were most devoted to the doctrines of Apelles. For they would have been the ones who, despite the fact that Marcion was the better known and more imposing figure, took the decisive step of siding with Apelles and of accepting leadership roles in his breakaway communities.

The author of the letters recognized the difficult situation the communities he addressed were in. This is the reason why he repeatedly tells his readers to not even speak with the docetists until they repent. They must completely avoid them. But he saw that the best chance he had of keeping the Apellean communities intact was to insist that the members obey their leaders. And to that end he searched for anything he could use to reinforce their authority. The result is sometimes funny. For instance, in the letter to the Ephesians he tries to turns the taciturn nature of their bishop to his advantage. He basically tells the Ephesians that the more quiet their bishop is the more they should revere him, apparently because he resembles the Lord most when he speaks least! (IgnEph 6). But his favorite argument is to claim that the hierarchy of offices in the community is a reflection of the hierarchy of heaven. Again, as I see it, for the author of the letters any argument was a good argument as long as it kept the members of the community under the influence of the people whom he judged to be the most loyal – the bishop and his presbytery and deacons in the local churches. The best way to protect the flock from the Judaizing of the proto-Catholics and the docetism of the Marcionites was to get them by hook or by crook to listen only to their Apellean shepherds.

Roger