PhilosopherJay

This may be of some interest. It is from Chapter 10 of my book "The Evolution of Christs and Christianities (Raskin, Xlibris)" Before this point, I show that the writer of seven epistles of Paul is a man from Thessalonike/Salonika:

Proof from Acts that Apollos was First to Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles

The writer of the seven epistles from Thessalonika is anxious to discredit Apollos as the first teacher of the Corinthians. If the Corinthians are holding to the teachings of Apollos and he is their first teacher, the founding father of their church, you can hardly blame them for continuing in his ways. However, if it can be proved that Paul was the real original teacher, then the Corinthians are traitors to their true heritage. Portraying the Corinthians as traitors to their heritage seems to be the approach that the Thessalonian writer has decided to take. It is likely that he is giving tit for tat and answering a charge made against himself by the Corinthians.
Can we be sure that this is the real status quo in Corinth at the time of the letters? Is this a real historical situation? I think we can be reasonably sure based on information given in Acts.
The editor of Acts wants to also tell us that Paul was first in Corinth. However it creates a fabulous contradiction in telling the tale. The text inadvertently praises Apollos for converting the Corinthians away from the Gospel of Paul and back to the Gospel of John. To figure out how this came about, we may examine the relevant text at the point where Apollos enters the picture. Acts (18) tells us that Paul traveled with Priscilla and Aquilla from Corinth to Ephesus.

18. After this Paul stayed many days longer, and then took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aq'uila. At Cen'chre-ae he cut his hair, for he had a vow.
19. And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there; but he himself went into the synagogue and argued with the Jews

After this the writer relates how Priscilla and Aquila met Apollos.

24. Now a Jew named Apol'los, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures.
25. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
26. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aq'uila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.
27. And when he wished to cross to Acha'ia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him….

After this, Apollos, apparently armed with the gospel of Priscilla and Aquila which they got from Paul, heads for Corinth. Since Paul has just preached in Corinth allegedly we expect that he should get a warm welcome. The text supports this idea.

27.… When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed,
28. for he powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

The lucky Corinthians are now getting to hear Paul's gospel a second time. This time they are getting it from Apollos who heard it from Priscilla and Aquila, who heard it from Paul. One should suspect that the Corinthians should be correcting him if he makes any mistakes as they received it before he did. But wait, something has gone terribly wrong (Acts, 19):

1.While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
2. And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3. And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."
4. And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
5. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
7. There were about twelve of them in all.

Apollos heard the good news from Priscilla and Aquila. They wrote to the Corinthians about him. They apparently received him well. The text next tells us "When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed." How can this be? It turns out he was preaching John's gospel of Baptism, i.e., the wrong gospel. If the Corinthians had Paul set them on the right track and then Apollos set them on the wrong track, why does the text say that "he greatly helped those who through grace had
believed."
Perhaps, we are reading the chronology wrong. Perhaps he went to Corinth before Paul and met Priscila and Aquila afterwards. But no, the text very clearly says (19:1) "While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus." Paul stays at Ephesus apparently the next two years (19:9). After two years, Paul takes a trip to Macedonia, but never makes it to Corinth. Instead he returns to Jerusalem.
There is simply no resolving this contradiction. If Paul taught first in Corinth, how can the Johanine teachings of Apollos have been a positive thing for the Corinthians. Also how could he be preaching to the Corinthians John's baptism after Priscilla and Aquila had set him straight? Perhaps he did not accept Priscilla and Aquila’s Pauline Gospel and lied to them about it to get them to write positive letters to the Corinthians to make his trip possible. On this assumption it becomes even more incomprehensible for the text to be praising him.
The text has an equally insoluble problem at in the lines that follow:

8. And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, arguing and pleading about the kingdom of God;
9. but when some were stubborn and disbelieved, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the hall of Tyrannus.
10. This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

The Hall of Tyrannus can only be referring to the Hall of Oedipus Tyrannus, Corinth’s most famous king. Paul is at Ephesus. How can he be at Ephesus and in Corinth at the same time?
This problem and the problem of the text praising Apollos for teaching a regressive gospel are solved if we assume the scenic cut back from Apollos in Corinth to Paul in Ephesus is an interpolation. By simply changing Paul to Apollos we can understand the original text.
These problems disappear if we assume that Apollos alone was the first to bring John the Baptist's Gospel to Corinth and the editor of Acts is just rewriting an accurate historical text about Apollos to give the credit to Paul. Reconstructing the original we get this text which not only eliminates the problems mentioned but explains how the text
knows Gallio was the Proconsul in Corinth: Only a couple of lines (18:1 and 19:26) have to be rearranged for better sense. Here is the reconstructed text:

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus.
He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures.
He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent
in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus,
though he knew only the baptism of John.
And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brethren encouraged
him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him.
{19:1} After this he left Ephesus and crossed to Corinth
When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed,
for he powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the
scriptures that the Christ was John….

…And he found a Jew named Aq'uila, a native of Pontus, lately come
from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all
the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them;
and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them, and they
worked, for by trade they were tentmakers.
{18.26} He began to speak
boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aq'uila heard him,
they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.
And he argued in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews
and Greeks.
When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Apollos was
occupied with preaching, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was
John.
And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments
and said to them, "Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From
now on I will go to the Gentiles."
And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius
Justus, a worshiper of God; his house was next door to the synagogue.
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together
with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Apollos
believed and were baptized.
And the Lord said to Apollos one night in a vision, "Do not be
afraid, but speak and do not be silent;
10: for I am with you, and no man shall attack you to harm you; for I
have many people in this city."
And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God
among them.
But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united
attack upon Apollos and brought him before the tribunal,
saying, "This man is persuading men to worship God contrary to the
law."
But when Apollos was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the
Jews, "If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, I should
have reason to bear with you, O Jews;
but since it is a matter of questions about words and names and
your own law, see to it yourselves; I refuse to be a judge of these
things."
And he drove them from the tribunal.
And they all seized Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and
beat him in front of the tribunal. But Gallio paid no attention to this.
After this Apollos stayed many days longer, and then took leave of
the brethren and sailed for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aq'uila…

…And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there; but he himself
went into the synagogue and argued with the Jews.
When they asked him to stay for a longer period, he declined;
but on taking leave of them he said, "I will return to you if God
wills," and he set sail from Ephesus.
When he had landed at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the
church, and then went down to Antioch.
After spending some time there he departed and went from place to
place through the region of Galatia and Phryg'ia strengthening all the
disciples.

We can now see what happened. The editor of Acts took an old historical text that referred to Apollos and made it refer to Paul.
We have left out one small section at the beginning of chapter 19 that seems to have been more extensively played with.

1.While Apollos was at Corinth, he passed through the upper city and came to Cenchreae. {18.18} At Cenchreae he cut his hair, for he had a vow.
There he found some disciples.
2. And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3. And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."
4. And Apollos said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
5. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6. And when Apollos had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
7. There were about twelve of them in all.

At first I considered Apollos baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus was an interpolation. It is certainly surprising that the name would be used so early. The baptisms seem to be taking place around 50 or 51 C.E. when Gallio was proconsul. Shouldn’t Apollos be baptizing in the name of John?
My thinking is that John was considered the Christ or anointed one (meaning king) shortly after 39 C.E. when the Romans appointed Herod Grippa king. John’s followers would have balked at this and declared him king/Christ. Mary has the witty scene of Mary Magdalene anointing Jesus in her play, and Peter/Judas criticizing her for wasting money.
The key thing to notice is that Jesus is not referred to as Christ here, simply Lord. Jesus. He is the Lord of the Angels who is still to come. It is improbable that John knew the name Jesus as the Lord of the Angels. The concept is not strongly associated with John. Most likely he just believed God would send or raise some messiah/savior. By 69 C.E., in the Book of Revelations, it is clear that the head angel has been given the name of Jesus. It is not improbable that sometime between the death of John circa 36 and 50, the followers of John determined that Jesus (Joshua) was the name of the head of the angels in heaven. This was easily derived from figuring that God had sent a man Jesus (Joshua Nun) to save Israel before in the time of Moses, so God would again send someone named Jesus. Since John had been raised to heaven and sat at the right hand of God, it was probable that the great Joshua had also been raised to heaven and made chief of the angels. If Joshua/Jesus was lord of the angels in the kingdom of God and John had said that the kingdom of God would be brought to Earth, it was obvious that Joshua/Jesus would come and rule the Kingdom of God on Earth. Therefore baptizing in the name of the lord Jesus would simply be baptizing in the name of the present king/lord of heaven and the future king/lord of Earth. We may take the concept of the Lord Jesus as developing in the 40’s among the followers of John the Nazarene/Baptist.

Warmly,

PhilosopherJay

mountainman

These problems also disappear in a most certain fashion if we assume that the Apollos is the historical figure of Apollonius of Tyana. Of course other problems are introduced, but the teachings of Apollonius of Tyana are substantial enough, for us to know he was an author of literature, and that his teachings were of influence sufficient to warrant the attention of Roman rulers of his time and in the centuries afterwards his name is referenced.

I understand that in history we are always dealing with possibilities, and that other people rule out the possibility that the teaching of Apollos is actually a christian reference to the teaching of Apollonius of Tyana. But I have never yet been persuaded by any reasonable argument that this Apollos could not in fact have been Apollonius (as per the Codex Bezae?), and indeed Apollonius of Tyana. Can you provide such reasonable argument(s)?



Best wishes

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au