mountainman

What rules this possibility out?

Perhaps he had a great historicity than legend would permit?

S.C.Carlson

Pretty much, except that I suspect that Apollos was only aware of one baptism, which Acts labels the "baptism of John," but which Apollos more likely just called "baptism" as if there were no others. According to 1 Cor. 3:5-6 and 1:14-15, Apollos was more effective than Paul at (water) baptizing Corinthian converts, so my sense is that the mention of speaking in tongues in Acts 19:1-6 and the discussion of speaking in tongues in 1 Cor. 12-14 are related issues.

I got into the 1 Cor. 14 side of the coin a bit more (though without discussing Acts) in my blog post Chester on Speaking in Tongues (1 Cor 14:23).

Stephen

Naphtali Jones

I guess we all just kind of assumed that Apollo was in town for the cruxifiction and resurrection but had left before the feast of Pentecost 50 days later. He was likely one of the diaspora who was in town for Passover and went home soon afterwards. At least, that was the standard Sunday School interpretation of it.

Sheshbazzar

I believe that rendered thus the matter might (to some), become self-explanatory.

This would of course indicate that the word "LORD" refers specifically to "YHWH".
Apollos, "mighty in the Scripture" could have been accurately teaching all that The TaNaKa had to say about "YHWH", without having any certainty knowledge concerning that certain Nazarene who had recently been at work among the people.

The insistance that the disciples could (can) only speak, or read what had been (is) written in Greek is deceptive, and even those who were (are) unable to read at all, were (are) able to hear The Name that was (IS) "declared" unto them. (John 17:6, 26)

Julian

Interestingly enough, it is only D that has that reading:

Ἀπολλῶς ὀνόματι] Byz ς WH
ὀνόματι Ἀπολλώνιος] D
Ἀπελλῆς ὀνόματι] א* 36 307 431 453 536 610 1175 copbo arm geo (eth) Didymus Ammonius-Alexandria

Julian

gstafleu

So, is this a historical or a literary discussion? In other words, are we reading Acts as a history book or as a work of fiction?

It seems to me that modern, non-apologetical, NT scholarship has pretty much come to the conclusion that the Jesus as presented in the Gospels is a fiction: there never was such a person. What is still up for grabs is the question if this fictional character was based on some real person or not, and if so, to what extent. But that means that a discussion of whether or not Apollos knew about Jesus is built on rather loose sand. Historically, we cannot ask if he was talking about the gospel Jesus, for there never was such a person. So which Jesus are we then hypothesising as his subject?

If, on the other hand, we take Acts as a work of fiction, we have to get into the mind of the author in order to find out what Apollos was "really" talking about. And here "really" has a slightly unreal meaning .

Phlox Pyros

Me.

Phlox Pyros

The reading of Apelles is also interesting, especially since it is found as the original reading in Codex Sinaiticus. I wonder what is behind the name differences.

Phlox Pyros

History.

Not by a long shot, but then that probably hinges on how you would define fiction. The gospels are considered by many to be embellished with early Christian theology. But complete fabrication? Not by a long shot.

I, myself, believe the Gospel's accounts of Jesus and his words are mostly historical. So, of course, this thread is about what Apollos knew of Jesus' life, teachings, death, resurrection, and the following pentecost. If you believe this to be pure fiction/myth, then of course you will not see the point...

gstafleu

OK, let's take the bible as history. We then see that Apollos is mentioned in two places: Acts and 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians may be helpful here. We see that Paul mentions Apollos as a member of a short list of Apostles: himself, Cephas (Peter) and Apollos. For example:
What Paul is doing here is combating divisiveness amongst the audience of his gentile mission. Cephas (Aramaic for rock = Greek Petros = Peter) was one of the "Pillars" of the Jerusalem Church (led by James the Just). The Jerusalem church were "Jewish Christians" meaning they attached much more importance to Mosaic law than Paul did (circumcision for example, something that Paul thought was not really a great seller among the gentiles). So Paul was partly at odds with them, although they were also Christians.

From this I deduce that Apollos was also a Christian apostle, although his preaching may have been a bit different than Paul's (hence these divisions that needed combating).

So did Apollos know the Jesus of the gospels? That is a tough one. In Paul we find very little reference to Jesus as we see him in the gospels (no Mary, no Nazareth, no miracles, no sayings...). So that one is up for grabs. But Apollos probably was a Christian of one variety or other.