From Adolf Harnack, De Apellis gnosi monarchica. Commentatio historica (Leipzig: E. Bidder, 1874), the Latin dissertation he defended at Leipzig on 9 July 1874 to gain the right to lecture there, translated from the Latin. This chapter gives the title page and the Prolegomena, pages 1–8. Part One and Part Two follow in the next two chapters.
[Title page]
DE APELLIS GNOSI MONARCHICA.
Commentatio historica quam summe venerandi theologorum ordinis auctoritate in Academia Lipsiensi ad impetrandam veniam legendi illustrissimi Jctorum ordinis concessu die IX m. Julii a. MDCCCLXXIV hora X in auditorio juridico publice defendet Adolfus Harnack, theol. lic. phil. dr. Lipsiae: E. Bidder, MDCCCLXXIV. [On the back of the title page:] Typis excusum Lipsiae in officina Oskar Leiner.
[English: On the Monarchian Gnosis of Apelles. A historical treatise which, by authority of the most venerable Faculty of Theology at the University of Leipzig, and with the leave of the most illustrious Faculty of Law, Adolf Harnack, Licentiate of Theology and Doctor of Philosophy, will publicly defend in the lecture hall of the Faculty of Law on 9 July 1874 at ten o’clock, to obtain the right to lecture. Leipzig: E. Bidder, 1874. Printed at Leipzig in the printing house of Oskar Leiner.]
[p. 1]
Some will perhaps deny that it is worth the trouble to undertake a separate inquiry into the doctrine of Apelles, the disciple of Marcion. They will object that only scanty fragments of Apelles’ books survive, that the testimonies of the Fathers are narrow and thin, and that whoever approaches this question will reach, by few and small steps, an end that is uncertain and does not satisfy. If we refute them by showing that what can be drawn from the sources is by no means scanty or thin, others will perhaps say that even if what the Fathers have handed down suffices to set out Apelles’ doctrine, the doctrine itself is still not so very worthy of diligence and study: for Apelles, the last offshoot of the family of the Gnostics, advanced almost nothing in the church, distinguished himself in no great and weighty controversy, and in the end won only a few disciples for himself.
To answer these doubts, something must be said first. We point out, to begin with, that Tertullian did not think it superfluous to refute the Apelleiaci1)
Notes [p. 1]
1) The name Ἀπελλῆς (cf. Bekker, Schol. Il. p. 167 E, 609: „Ἀρίσταρχος Μενεσθῆν ὡς Ἀπελλῆν“ [English: “Aristarchus (accents) Menesthēn like Apellēn”]; Choeroboscus, Dictata in Theodosii Canones, ed. Gaisford, p. 46, 34: Ἀπελλῆς Ἀπελλοῦ [Apellēs, genitive Apellou]; but among the Latins the name is of the third declension, cf. Forcellini, Tot. latinit. Lexic. T. I, p. 196) is very often found wrongly written “Appelles” in the manuscripts. No one is unaware that the name is found quite often among the Greeks and, at a later time, among the Romans too (cf. Epist. to the Romans 16:10). The writers differ on the form of the name of Apelles’ followers. Oehler suspects that Tertullian wrote “Apelleiaci”; but if anyone should wish to conclude from the critical apparatus to the books De carne Christi 8. 24 (in Oehler, Tom. II) that Tertullian wrote “Apelliaci,” I shall not deny it. Cyprian wrote “Apelletiani”; Augustine “Apellitae.” The same form is used by the author of the book commonly called Praedestinatus, by Pseudo-Jerome, Isidore of Seville, Paulus, and Honorius of Autun. In Greek we find it written Ἀπελληϊανοί [Apelleians] in Epiphanius, and we cannot doubt that Origen too used the same form of the name; for in the old Latin version of Origen’s commentaries on Matthew (in Ruaeus T. III p. 852; in Lommatzsch T. IV p. 251) we read “. . . et Valentiniani et Apelliani” [English: “both Valentinians and Apellians”] (that is, Οὐαλεντινιανοὶ καὶ Ἀπελληϊανοί). Fabricius writes “Apelleiani”; Hesselberg “Appelleciani” (!); Uhlhorn “Apelleciani,” and so on. Following Tertullian, we have used “Apelleiaci.” From the different and varied forms of the name you may rightly conclude that the disciples of Apelles were neither many nor long flourishing. So it came about that each writer made up his own form of the name, since no form used alike by all existed.
[p. 2]
in a book of their own;1) and next, which is an argument of the greatest weight, that Tertullian, Cyprian and Origen, whenever they mean to name the chiefs of the heretics, always mention Apelles besides Marcion, Valentinus and Basilides.2) For they understood very well that the doctrine of Apelles was far more dangerous and far more insidious than the dogmas of Carpocrates, Satornilus and others, which by about the end of the second
Notes [p. 2]
1) Cf. Tert. De carne Chr. 8: „Est nobis adversus illos (scil. Apelleiacos) libellus“ [English: “We have a little book against them” (that is, against the Apelleiaci)].
2) It is clearer than daylight that Tertullian counted Apelles among the chiefs of the heretics; for he holds Marcion, Valentinus and Apelles to be the heads of the heretics. These three and no others he censures and attacks always and everywhere. When their doctrines are refuted, he considers the whole of heresy refuted (cf. De praescript. haer. 7, 10, 30, 33, 34, 37). Against each of them he undertook a separate contest, in those notable volumes written against Marcion, against the Valentinians and against the Apelleiaci. In the book in which he refutes the false opinions about the flesh of Christ, he touches on the dogmas of Marcion (c. 1–5), of Apelles (c. 6–9) and of Valentinus (c. 10 ff.), and on no others. Everywhere he keeps this order: he gives Marcion the first place and Apelles the second or third (cf. what I have discussed on this matter in Zeitschr. f. d. histor. Theol. 1874. II. p. 223 ff.).
Cyprian seldom touches on the Gnostics (cf. Epist. 74, “Marcion, Valentinus, Apelles”; Epist. 73, “Patripassiani, Anthropiani (!), Valentiniani, Apelletiani, Ophitae, Marcionitae”), but where he names the founders of heresies he does not forget Apelles. Firmilian too, in his letter that was taken into the collection of Cyprian’s letters, mentions Apelles (Epist. 75: “Marcion, Apelles; Valentinus, Basilides”).
Origen too counts Apelles among the founders of heresies: see the Sententia de resurr. in Jerome, Epist. 38 (61) [in Ruaeus T. I, p. 36]: “Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, Manes.” Comment. in Matth. ser. 33 [T. III, p. 852]: “Marciones, Basilides, Valentiniani, Apelliani”; Comment. in Matth. ser. 46 [T. III, p. 864]: “Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Apelles”; and ser. 47 of the same book [l. c. p. 865]: “Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Apelles”; on the same page: “Marcion, Basilides, Apelles,” etc., etc. In very many places, indeed almost everywhere, you will find that Origen kept Marcion in first place (cf. what I have discussed more fully, l. c. p. 224 ff.).
In the treatise of Hippolytus of Rome against all heresies, which is lost but has now been restored as far as possible (cf. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, Vienna 1865), Apelles follows in order after Lucanus, the disciple of Marcion; but since Marcion himself had been pushed down to a lower place by Irenaeus and Hippolytus, Apelles too received a lower place. Hippolytus was followed by Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine and the Praedestinatus. The writers of a later time, however, badly disturbed Hippolytus’ order. Pseudo-Jerome counts Marcion in fourth place and Apelles in seventeenth; Isidore, straying from all historical truth, makes Apelles eleventh in order and Marcion twentieth, and Honorius of Autun followed him. Paulus put Valentinus between Marcion and Apelles. Others have violated history in other ways.
[p. 3]
century had nearly died out. For credulous and fickle minds could be won to the doctrine of Apelles by this very thing, that this heretic was the defender and champion of what is called monism. Apelles laid down only one principle, “unborn, unmade, eternal”: since he confessed this dogma, having nearly slipped out of the snares of the Gnostics,1) he could very easily lead many into heresy.2)
The closer, then, Apelles drew to the doctrine of the church of that time, the more we must ask in what things above all the Apelleian dogmas were separated from those of the church.
Next let us recall that Apelles was one of the last of the Gnostic founders of heresies: after him very few brought forward new Gnostic doctrines. Many, therefore, who have worked at explaining the history of Gnosticism have held that Apelles, by changing the dualism of the Gnostics
Notes [p. 3]
1) In this dissertation of ours we have used the word “Gnostics” in the wider sense, that is, the sense used by writers of a later time. Cf. my little book Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus, Leipzig 1873, p. 12 ff., p. 28 ff., p. 87 ff.; Zeitschr. f. d. histor. Theol. 1874. II, p. 222 ff., where we have shown that neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian counted Marcion and Valentinus among the Gnostic heretics.
2) Apart from Apelles I know only Tatian as a guardian of monism who was nevertheless a Gnostic heretic. With every right, therefore, Tatian follows Apelles in the catalogue of heretics composed by Hippolytus. The doctrines of Pseudo-Clement and of Bardesanes or of the Pseudo-Basilidians, which in some part have a flavour of monism, rest on other foundations than the Apelleian.
[p. 4]
into monism, put an end to Gnostic matters, so that the doctrines of the Gnostics gradually returned to the bounds of the church and in this way little by little disappeared.1) But let those whom it concerns see whether this opinion can be proved. We do not wish to deny that the doctrine of Apelles holds a middle place between the doctrine of the church and that of the heretics; but they have by no means shown that Apelles put an end to the whole history of Gnostic matters and led the waves of Gnosticism itself back into the bed of the church, nor have they sufficiently confirmed their opinion, since it could be replied that the doctrine of Apelles was of no importance in the history of Gnosticism, and that Apelles himself, having left the usual road of the Gnostics and entered a secluded and remote path, in no way carried Gnostic matters further, much less brought them to an end. Which side should be agreed with we do not wish to prejudge; but this at least will become clear, that a closer inquiry into the doctrine of Apelles brings some light to the history of Gnostic matters.
Finally we add that the doctrine of Apelles contains certain true things which the church of that time lacked the knowledge of. For Apelles, following in the footsteps of Marcion, wanted to restore the doctrine of the apostle Paul on law and gospel, which the church had grasped less than rightly and in part corrupted. And since it is well known that few in Apelles’ time noticed the danger of a new law set up by the church, we do not doubt, even though we decline to accept Neander’s judgment declaring the Marcionites true Protestants,2) that every Protestant will treat the doctrines of these men with special and particular interest.
This being so, we have surely commended our plan to examine the doctrine of Apelles accurately anew; and if you look at the sketches of his system given by learned and well-equipped men,
Notes [p. 4]
1) Cf. Lipsius, Der Gnosticismus, sein Wesen, Ursprung und Entwickelungsgang, Leipzig 1860, p. 171: „Hier ist der Punkt, wo der eigentliche Gnosticismus sich aufhebt und in das katholische Bewusstsein übergeht“ [English: “Here is the point where Gnosticism proper cancels itself and passes over into the Catholic consciousness”]. Before Lipsius gave this judgment, many learned men had already given our Apelles this place in the history of Gnosticism; I mean Niedner and others. Keim (Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, Zürich 1867, T. I, p. 152 n. 3) seems to have embraced Lipsius’ opinion on the history of Gnosticism.
2) Neander, Allg. Gesch. d. christl. Relig. u. Kirche, T. I, p. 792.
[p. 5]
I mean those of Neander,1) Matter,2) Baur,3) Dorner,4) Moeller5) and Lipsius,6) you will hardly say that we shall be wasting our labour. For if the accounts these men have composed are compared with one another,7) you will find that they have gone off in different directions in many places, and that where they agree they have not everywhere taken the right road.
On this, indeed, all are agreed: that Apelles followed a monarchian kind of gnosis. But beyond this boundary they no longer all go forward together. For there is dispute about the number of the famous angels of God, about their nature, and about the relation that, in Apelles’ view, existed between each of them and God himself. And it is easy to see that so long as no sure judgment has been reached on this, namely whether Apelles held the God of the law and of Israel to be a God of wickedness and made him in everything the opponent of the higher God, or a God of goodness, though lower, and of obedience, all closer knowledge of Apelles’ doctrine is still left hanging in the middle and wavers. Until we have satisfied this question, we cannot rightly distinguish and recognize even a single part of Apelles’ doctrine. But perhaps someone will object that learned men today agree to a man when they say that in Apelles one God, the God of the law and of Israel, is subject to the good God, and another, a fiery God, is hostile to the good one.8) I hear it. But it must rightly be asked whether this opinion, now indeed common and general, is supported by sure arguments, and whether it can be supported at all; and I am not afraid to declare that many things that do not favour that opinion have been neglected and passed over by those very learned men.
Notes [p. 5]
1) Neander, Genet. Entw. d. vornehmst. gnost. Systeme, Berlin 1818, p. 323 ff.; Allg. Gesch. d. christl. Relig. u. K., T. I, p. 817 ff.
2) Matter, Histoire critique du gnosticisme, Paris 1828, T. I, p. 412 ff.
3) Baur, Die christl. Gnosis, Tübingen 1835, p. 405 ff.
4) Dorner, Entwickelungs-Gesch. d. Lehre v. d. Person Christi, Berlin 1851, T. I, p. 387 ff.
5) Moeller, Gesch. d. Kosmologie i. d. griech. Kirche, Halle 1860, p. 388 ff.
6) Lipsius, Der Gnosticismus, p. 167 ff.
7) If you like, compare, please, Lipsius’ words with Moeller’s, or Baur’s account with Neander’s.
8) So Neander, Baur, Dorner, Moeller, Lipsius, Hilgenfeld, Keim and the rest.
[p. 6]
It is our intention to contribute something by our inquiry to solving this question, certainly the highest and greatest. It can be solved in this way: by examining accurately the sources from which we can draw Apelles’ doctrine. For no one until now has carefully kept apart these two questions, what the sources have handed down about Apelles’ doctrine and what Apelles himself professed; no one, that is, has both compared all the sources with one another and judged between them. Lipsius, indeed, the keenest explorer of all things Gnostic, undertook an examination of the sources,1) but he looked more closely only at the book of Hippolytus, and, excused by the plan of his work, touching only lightly on what Tertullian and other writers have handed down, fell into error here and there. Volkmar investigated where Theodoret took what he wrote about Apelles’ doctrine; but he did not undertake the inquiry in order to uncover and restore the genuine doctrine of Apelles, but in order to prove the use of the so-called Philosophumena.2)
This above all, then, must now be done: the sources must be called to examination. Only when the examination has been undertaken and carried through shall we have gained the means of bringing out the genuine and true doctrine of Apelles. Learned men have favoured the doctrines of the Basilidians, of Cerinthus, of Pseudo-Clement and of Bardesanes, examining them with great zeal; Heinrici3) has very recently given his attention to the dogmas of the Valentinians; Lipsius,4) Gruber5) and Berger6) have tried to explain the monstrous dogmas of the Ophites. But hardly anyone has examined the doctrines of Marcion and the Marcionites with fine judgment
Notes [p. 6]
1) Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, Vienna 1865, p. 209–215.
2) Volkmar, Hippolyt. u. die röm. Zeitgenossen, Zürich 1855, p. 23; 27 ff.; 40 ff.
3) Heinrici, Die Valentinianische Gnosis u. d. h. Schrift, Berlin 1871. Cf. what Lipsius has said about this book in Protestant. Kirch.-Zeit. 1873, No. 8, p. 174–186.
4) Lipsius, “Die ophitischen Systeme,” in Zeitschr. f. d. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1863 IV; 1864 I.
5) Gruber, Ueber die Ophiten, Würzburg 1864.
6) Philippe Berger, Etude des documents nouveaux fournis sur les Ophites par les Philosophoumena, Nancy 1873.
[p. 7]
and looked into the sources thoroughly with critical reckoning, so as to choose what is pure and proven and to set apart what is spurious and coloured, bearing the traces of a later time. Considering this, we have set ourselves to give a small sample of the critical art in a narrow and limited part of Marcionite matters, undertaking to bring out and set forth the particular doctrine of Apelles, the disciple of Marcion.
But we have taken on the labour of examining the sources not only in order to bring out the genuine and true doctrine of Apelles, but also in order to contribute something to shedding fresh light on a question already often treated and much disputed: the question, I mean, of whose footsteps Apelles chiefly followed when he left Marcion in order to philosophize by his own strength. We cannot deny that the matter is not so easy to judge; for the writers on the Apelleian doctrine go off in different directions. On this indeed they agree, that Apelles, leaning on various inventions of various heretics, put many different things together into one; but which doctrine had the most authority with him, and led him to change Marcion’s inventions, no one has yet shown to the applause of all learned men. Neander1) bids us look to the philosophy and gnosis of the Alexandrians; if Baur2) is to be believed, Pseudo-Clement must be held to have been Apelles’ master in everything, even in defending monism;3) Lipsius, coming close to Neander’s judgment, has called in the Hellenizing Gnostics and, to uncover the origins of Apelles’ doctrine, has brought in many dogmas of other heretics;4) Moeller, finally, compared the systems of the Ophites, the Peratae and the Docetae, and held that their
Notes [p. 7]
1) Gnostische Systeme, p. 323 ff.: „Diese Veränderung war ohne Zweifel durch den Einfluss der alexandrinischen Philosophie und Gnosis bewirkt worden“ [English: “This change had without doubt been brought about by the influence of Alexandrian philosophy and gnosis”]. Cf. Matter, l. c., p. 413.
2) Gnosis, p. 411: „Nehmen wir alle diese Nachweisungen zusammen, ist die Vermuthung zu gewagt, dass die ganze Beschaffenheit der Lehre des Apelles den Eindruck beurkundet, welchen das pseudoclementinische System auf jene Zeit machte?“ [English: “If we take all these indications together, is the conjecture too bold that the whole character of Apelles’ doctrine attests the impression that the Pseudo-Clementine system made on that time?”]
4) Gnosticismus, p. 167: „Unter dem Einfluss hellenisirender Gnostiker hatte er in Alexandrien eine Aeonenlehre und die platonische Lehre vom Seelenfalle sich angeeignet“ [English: “Under the influence of Hellenizing Gnostics he had taken up in Alexandria a doctrine of aeons and the Platonic doctrine of the fall of souls”]. Besides this, Lipsius brings in the opinions of Satornilus and the Ophites.
[p. 8]
dogmas lay hidden in Apelles’ doctrine.1) Into so many directions do the opinions of learned men run! But the hinge of the whole question turns on this: that it be more carefully investigated in which opinions the doctrine of Apelles departs from Marcion’s; and you will rightly be surprised to learn that this question, surely the chief and principal one, has not been treated by learned men with full zeal. Yet it is clearer than daylight that the main thing to look to is to define accurately what relation existed between the doctrines of Apelles and of Marcion; for Apelles, although he went out from the school of Marcion, nevertheless built his own structures on the foundations that Marcion laid. We shall therefore ask first where Apelles departed from Marcion’s genuine doctrine, and then we shall examine why he departed: whether, moved by the authority of other men, he picked out new ways for himself, or whether he took the impulse to work out a new kind of doctrine from the character of the doctrine that Marcion had embraced. For no one is unaware that Marcion’s doctrine was uncertain and ambiguous in many respects,2) which made it all the easier for Apelles, by picking out single opinions and steadily working them out, to advance to limits far removed from Marcion’s bounds. If you weigh this, you will everywhere first try to trace Apelles’ doctrine back to Marcion’s dogmas, and only then, if you have become convinced that not everything can be explained from Marcion’s opinions, will you look into the tenets of other men in order to uncover the origins of Apelles’ doctrine.
From what we have discussed so far, both the plan and the subject of our inquiry can easily be seen. If God permits, we shall set out elsewhere what we have on Marcion himself, and there we shall also judge Apelles’ doctrine more fully.