Apelles, Apollos and the Controversy in the Marcionite Epistle to the Alexandrians

I have been developing what I think is one of the most important discoveries in Biblical scholarship in some time (how's that for modesty?). Our canonical Letter to the Corinthians was a 'redesigned' version of the first epistle in the Marcionite canon - the 'Epistle to the Alexandrians.'

I believe that this will eventually develop into an argument for the existence of an Alexandrian 'shadow' New Testament canon that continued to be used in various churches across the Empire down through to the fourth century.

Yes of course, Clement and Origen 'know' and use 'our' familiar New Testament canon. But so what? It has always seemed readily apparent to me that they aren't always telling us the whole truth about the beliefs, practices and traditions of their native Alexandrian See.

The Letter to Theodore confirms this situation as does a number of other proofs that I have developed at this site for almost a year now.

It all comes down to how Alexandria isn't at all represented in the Catholic tradition. Not only is there no longer an 'Epistle to the Alexandrians' but there is almost nothing at all of the Alexandrian See in any reports that date before the fourth century. How could the most important city in the Empire get completely obscured in Catholic Christianity when Alexandria was the home to basically every other sect - heretical or otherwise?

Something just doesn't smell right here. It is as if there was a conscious effort to diminish the value of St. Mark and his See.

What I would ultimately like to demonstrate is that that the 'Marcionites' and Marcionitism represents the raw original expression of this original Alexandrian Church. Indeed if I have the ear of enough listeners I will eventually make the case that Marcion is just 'St. Mark.' Hippolytus hints at this as do the Dialogues of Adamantius. I would explain the name 'Marcion' as something which developed from a back formation of the Aramaic Marqione or 'those of Mark.'

This group, originally identified as 'those of Mark' in Aramaic, are one and the same in my mind with the Egyptian sect of 'those of Mark' (i.e. the Marcosians) in the writings of Irenaeus. If you have been following this site for the last few months you have seen how I have developed the argument for this case.

I have also proven that Clement was a Marcosian. I have also demonstrated that Origen's patron Ambrose was a Marcionite and that Origen frequent puts forward acknowledged Marcionite formulations as worthy of consideration.

I think that if we go back to Eznik's report that the Marcionites he met in Armenia identified Marcion - rather than Paul - as having the vision of 2 Corinthians 12:4.

As such all that's left for us to do is begin the process of seeing that BECAUSE the Letter to the Alexandrians was first in the canon AND BECAUSE of the fact the Marcionite gospel is frequently identified as a variant gospel of Mark we should see the beginnings of the understanding that this theoretical Alexandrian 'shadow New Testament canon' was really the 'Marcionite' canon only now 'brought to life' from the reports of the Church Fathers.

I want to present my understanding that Clement, Origen and the rest of the Alexandrian Fathers had to endure the idiotic stories floating around in antiquity all the while maintain 'Marcionite' beliefs in the same way as the Frankists or Dönmeh have continued to perpetuate their beliefs within the hostile religious traditions. If history had worked out differently, their traditions would have remained the dominant ones. Yet, that was not to be.

The point is that we do have Clement acknowledging the existence of a 'Mystic Gospel of Mark' secretly employed by the Alexandrian tradition. Irenaeus speaks of 'an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth." (AH i.20.1) I have already demonstrated that 'eight' (Heb. shemone) is the unspeakable number for the gnostics. Irenaeus is undoubtedly recycling the original heretical interest in the number eight against the tradition here and elsewhere (cf. 'Simon Magus').

Let's go one step further and examine one small part of the original problem.

Clement of Alexandria identifies Marcion as becoming a Christian in the apostolic period. Why does the Alexandrian contradict the 'accepted' beliefs of Irenaeus?

Because he knows better.

I have already demonstrated why I believe that the so-called 'Pauline Epistles' were written in the period after the first gospel was written (i.e. c. 70 CE). The gospel may have been composed just before the destruction of the temple (I happen to think that) but I am willing to entertain the possibility that it was just after that date too.

The important thing for us to see now is that the testimony of Eznik AND Hippolytus, the Acts of Archelaus and a number of sources can be taken together to argue for the fact that 'Paul' was only a title of the man who was the apostle and paraclete of the tradition, the one who received the heavenly Torah (doesn't all of this sound proto-Islamic?).

The real name of the apostle wasn't 'Paul' - this was his title. His real birth name was 'Marcion' or if you will - Mark.

In other words, if we could go back to the earliest sources we would see that our apostle Paul was really 'Marcion.' The Catholics had to develop an intermediary between Marcion and his canon otherwise it would be impossible for them to argue that he was wrong about his interpretation of those texts.

The invention of 'Paul' accomplishes exactly this and more, and we should remember that even in the Catholic tradition 'Paul is not the 'real name' - i.e. birth name of the apostle. The adoption of this title is never quite explained other than to declare that it was done after the apostle was already established as 'Saul.'

Yet am I the only one to see that the Aramaic shaul also means 'grave' or 'underworld.' In other words, the Catholic tradition might well have been developed from the idea floating around in Marcionite circles that after being in shaul the apostle rose up and became 'Paul.' More on that later.

For the moment I just want my readers to consider that we have two letters standing side by side - the original Marcionite 'Letter to the Alexandrians' and the later Catholic corruption of that text - the familiar Epistle to the Corinthians.

In both traditions there was this figure name 'Apollos' or some such variation. In Syriac he is ܐܦܠܘ = alef pe lamed vav or apelo, afelo in Samaritan Aramaic. The Catholic tradition makes it appear in its version of the epistle that the apostle was presenting a unified front with ܐܦܠܘ. Before Paul's arrival in 'Corinth' Apollos had already left out of disgust for the wicked practices of the Corinthians. Eventually he ends up in Crete.

Now as I have already noted, the Catholic tradition when it first introduced its false canon had to explain surviving members of the old 'Marcionite' tradition how this same 'Apollos' ended up in Corinth after being originally being thought to be referenced in an 'Epistle to the Alexandrians.' I don't Acts was directed against members of the presbytery per se but the lay members of the Church who might have heard something about this ܐܦܠܘ from recitations of the old canon.

The Catholic tradition while claiming that 'Apollos' remained friendly with Paul had to invent someone else to represent the original figure of ܐܦܠܘ in the Marcionite tradition who - as we will demonstrate - was understood to be causing consternation for the apostle. ܐܦܠܘ was continuing to preach Jewish beliefs and practices IN ALEXANDRIA against the Apostle's introduction of a new revelation from heaven.

In the new Catholic scenario which was developed in a Corinthian environment, the role of ܐܦܠܘ was taken over by an invented figure called 'Cerinthos' (developed as Petrement suggests from the name 'Corinthian.' Cerinthos was the Corinthian equivalent of ܐܦܠܘ in his original Alexandrian narrative.

Yet isn't it noteworthy that the Catholic tradition still preserves a certain Apelles (Ἀπελλῆς) as an Alexandrian schismatic from Marcion, the true apostle of the Marcionite tradition? I think that the original Marcionite Epistle to the Alexandrians the Apostle admonished ܐܦܠܘ. He was the original Cerinthos.

It's all coming together ...