Adolf von Harnack, Apelles, the Disciple of Marcion and Founder of a Sect (Marcion, 1921, Appendix VII)

From Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1921; Texte und Untersuchungen, volume 45), Appendix VII, pages 323*–339*, translated from the German. The heading is Harnack’s: “Beilage VII: Apelles, der Schüler Marcions und Sectenstifter.” The page numbers carry the asterisk with which Harnack numbered his appendices.

[p. 323*]

1. From Rhodon’s work “Against the Heresy of Marcion,” in Euseb., h. e. V, 13¹⁾

For the opening see above, p. 244* f.; then: Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς (scil. the Marcionites) ἀσύμφωνοι γεγόνασιν, ἀσυστάτου γνώμης ἀντιποιούμενοι. ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς τούτων ἀγέλης Ἀπελλῆς μέν, ὁ τὴν πολιτείαν σεμνυνόμενος καὶ τὸ γῆρας, μίαν ἀρχὴν ὁμολογεῖ, τὰς δὲ προφητείας ἐξ ἀντικειμένου λέγει πνεύματος, πειθόμενος ἀποφθέγμασι παρθένου δαιμονώσης, ὄνομα Φιλουμένης . . . . (Γράφει δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς [scil. Rhodon], Eusebius remarks, οἷς καὶ εἰς λόγους ἐληλύθει τῷ Ἀπελλῇ, φάσκων οὕτως·) Ὁ γὰρ γέρων Ἀπελλῆς συμμίξας ἡμῖν, πολλὰ μὲν κακῶς λέγων ἠλέγχθη· ὅθεν καὶ ἔφασκεν μὴ δεῖν ὅλως ἐξετάζειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστον, ὡς πεπίστευκεν, διαμένειν· σωθήσεσθαι γὰρ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἠλπικότας ἀπεφαίνετο, μόνον ἐὰν ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς εὑρίσκωνται· τὸ δὲ πάντων ἀσαφέστατον ἐδογματίζετο πρᾶγμα, καθὼς προειρήκαμεν, τὸ περὶ θεοῦ· ἔλεγεν μὲν γὰρ μίαν ἀρχήν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος (here Eusebius has left out the rest of the sentence). Λέγοντος δέ μου πρὸς αὐτόν· ‘Πόθεν ἡ ἀπόδειξις αὕτη σοι, ἢ πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν μίαν ἀρχήν; φράσον ἡμῖν,’ ἔφη τὰς μὲν προφητείας ἑαυτὰς ἐλέγχειν διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ὅλως ἀληθὲς εἰρηκέναι· ἀσύμφωνοι γὰρ ὑπάρχουσι καὶ ψευδεῖς καὶ ἑαυταῖς ἀντικείμεναι· τὸ δὲ πῶς ἐστιν μία ἀρχή, μὴ γινώσκειν ἔλεγεν, οὕτως δὲ κινεῖσθαι μόνον. εἶτ᾽ ἐπομοσαμένου μου τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, ὤμνυεν ἀληθεύων λέγειν μὴ ἐπίστασθαι πῶς εἷς ἐστιν ἀγένητος (probably, with ABDM, [p. 324*] ἀγέννητος should be written; see below the passage from Orig., Comm. in ep. ad Titum) θεός, τοῦτο δὲ πιστεύειν. Ἐγὼ δὲ γελάσας κατέγνων αὐτοῦ, διότι διδάσκαλος εἶναι λέγων, οὐκ ᾔδει τὸ διδασκόμενον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κρατύνειν.

[English: “For this reason they have fallen into disagreement among themselves (namely the Marcionites), since they lay claim to an opinion that does not hold together. For out of their herd Apelles, who prides himself on his way of life and his old age, confesses one principle, but says that the prophecies come from an opposing spirit, persuaded by the utterances of a possessed virgin named Philumene . . . . (The same writer [namely Rhodon], Eusebius remarks, writes that he had also come into discussion with Apelles, saying:) For the old man Apelles, when he met with us, was refuted in saying many things wrongly; and so he said that one should not examine the account at all, but each should remain as he has believed; for he declared that those who have set their hope on the Crucified will be saved, if only they are found in good works; but the most obscure thing of all in his teaching was, as we said before, the matter of God; for he spoke of one principle, as our account also does (. . .). When I said to him, ‘Where do you get this proof, or how can you say there is one principle? Tell us,’ he said that the prophecies refute themselves, because they have said nothing true at all; for they are inconsistent and false and contradict themselves; but how there is one principle, he said he did not know, but was simply moved to hold it. Then, when I adjured him to tell the truth, he swore that he was speaking the truth when he said that he did not understand how there is one unbegotten God, but that he believed it. And I laughed and condemned him, because, though he said he was a teacher, he did not know how to establish what he taught.”]

[p. 324*]

Eusebius goes on, after reporting that Rhodon acknowledges that he was (once) converted at Rome by Tatian but afterwards became his opponent: Φέρεται δὲ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἑξαήμερον ὑπόμνημα. ὅ γέ τοι Ἀπελλῆς οὗτος μυρία κατὰ τοῦ Μωυσέως ἠσέβησε νόμου, διὰ πλειόνων συγγραμμάτων τοὺς θείους βλασφημήσας λόγους, εἰς ἔλεγχόν τε, ὥς γε δὴ ἐδόκει, καὶ ἀνατροπὴν αὐτῶν οὐ μικρὰν πεποιημένος σπουδήν.¹⁾ [English: “There is also a commentary of his on the Six Days’ Work in circulation. This Apelles, at any rate, committed countless impieties against the law of Moses, blaspheming the divine words in a great many writings, and making no small effort, as he at least thought, to refute and overthrow them.”]

2. Tertullian

De praescr. 6: “Providerat iam tunc (when Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians) spiritus sanctus futurum in virgine quadam Philumene angelum seductionis, transfigurantem se in angelum lucis, cuius signis et praestigiis Apelles inductus novam haeresim induxit.”²⁾ [English: “Even then the Holy Spirit had foreseen that there would be, in a certain virgin Philumene, an angel of seduction transforming himself into an angel of light, led on by whose signs and illusions Apelles brought in a new heresy.”]

De praescr. 7: “Ubi aliquid de igneo deo allegatur (namely in Apelles), Heraclitus intervenit” [Where anything is alleged about a fiery god, Heraclitus has had a hand in it] (that is, Apelles has his doctrine from him).

De praescr. 30: “Sed et (Marcion and Valentinus have been discussed just before) Apellis stemma retractandum est, tam non vetus et ipse quam Marcion institutor (institor B) et praeformator eius, sed lapsus in feminam desertor continentiae Marcionensis ab oculis sanctissimi magistri Alexandriam secessit. inde post annos regressus non melior, nisi tantum qua iam non Marcionites, in alteram feminam impegit, illam virginem Philumenen, quam supra edidimus, postea vero immane prostibulum et ipsam, cuius [p. 325*] energemate¹⁾ circumventus quae ab ea didicit ‘Phaneroseis’ scripsit. adhuc in saeculo supersunt, qui meminerint eorum (Marcion, Valentinus and Apelles), etiam proprii discentes et successores ipsorum, ne (se) posteriores negare possint.” [English: “But the pedigree of Apelles too must be gone over again. He is no more ancient than Marcion, his founder and shaper; but, falling for a woman, he deserted Marcion’s continence and withdrew to Alexandria, out of the sight of his most holy master. Coming back from there years later no better, except only in that he was no longer a Marcionite, he ran up against another woman, that virgin Philumene whom we mentioned above, who afterwards herself became a monstrous prostitute; ensnared by the spirit at work in her, he wrote down what he learned from her as ‘Phaneroseis’ (Revelations). There are still people alive who remember them (Marcion, Valentinus and Apelles), even their own pupils and successors, so that they cannot deny that they are later.”] (Jerome, ep. 133, 4, follows this: “Apelles Philumenem suarum comitem habuit doctrinarum” [Apelles had Philumene as the companion of his teachings].)

[p. 325*]

De praescr. 33: “Ita (the rejection of marriage) instituit Marcion et Apelles, eius secutor” [So Marcion taught, and Apelles, his follower].

De praescr. 34: “Apelles creatorem angelum nescio quem gloriosum superioris dei fecit, deum legis et Israelis illum (read alium) igneum affirmans.”²⁾ [English: “Apelles made the creator some glorious angel of the higher God, declaring that that (read: another) fiery one is the God of the law and of Israel.”]

De praescr. 37: Marcion, Valentinus, Apelles as heretics; already in c. 30 their sects were set over against the others as “insigniores et frequentiores” [the more notable and the more numerous].

Adv. Marc. III, 11: “Nam et Philumene illa magis persuasit Apelli ceterisque desertoribus Marcionis, ex fide quidem Christum circumtulisse carnem, nullius tamen nativitatis, utpote de elementis eam mutuatam.” [English: “For that Philumene rather persuaded Apelles and the other deserters of Marcion that Christ did truly carry flesh about, yet flesh of no birth, as having been borrowed from the elements.”]

Adv. Marc. IV, 17: “Non est discipulus super magistrum. hoc meminisse debuerat Apelles, Marcionis de discipulo emendator . . . . Nec Marcion aliquid boni de thesauro Cerdonis malo protulit, nec Apelles de Marcionis.” [English: “The disciple is not above the master. Apelles ought to have remembered this, he who from being Marcion’s disciple became his corrector . . . . Neither did Marcion bring forth anything good from the evil treasure of Cerdo, nor Apelles from Marcion’s.”]

De carne 1: “Quasi non eadem licentia haeretica et ipse (scil. Marcion) potuisset aut admissa carne nativitatem negare, ut Apelles discipulus et postea desertor ipsius, aut et carnem et nativitatem confessus aliter illas interpretari, ut condiscipulus et condesertor eius Valentinus.” [English: “As though he himself (namely Marcion) could not, with the same heretical licence, either have admitted the flesh and denied the birth, like Apelles, his disciple and afterwards his deserter, or confessed both the flesh and the birth and interpreted them otherwise, like Valentinus, his fellow-disciple and fellow-deserter.”]

[p. 326*]

De carne 7 [sic; the passage is in chapter 6]: “Quidam discentes Pontici illius, supra magistrum sapere compulsi, concedunt Christo carnis veritatem sine praeiudicio tamen renuendae nativitatis. ‘Habuerit,’ inquiunt, ‘carnem dum omnino non natam.’ Pervenimus igitur de calcaria, quod dici solet, in carbonariam, a Marcione ad Apellem, qui, posteaquam a disciplina Marcionis in mulierem carne lapsus, dehinc in virginem Philumenen spiritu eversus est, solidum Christi corpus, sed sine nativitate suscepit ab ea (eo Aγ) praedicare, et angelo quidem illi Philumenes eadem voce apostolus respondebit (Gal. 1:8 follows) . . . . Confitentur vere corpus habuisse Christum . . . . ‘De sideribus,’ inquiunt, ‘et de substantiis superioris mundi mutuatus est carnem,’ et utique proponunt non esse mirandum corpus sine nativitate, cum et apud nos angelis licuerit nulla uteri opera in carnem processisse . . . . Vos haec (the appearances of the Lord and of the angels to Abraham) non recipitis . . . . Probent (Apelles and his pupils) angelos illos carnem de sideribus concepisse . . . .” [English: “Certain pupils of that man of Pontus, driven to be wiser than their master, grant Christ the reality of flesh, yet without prejudice to their refusal of his birth. ‘Let him have had flesh,’ they say, ‘so long as it was not born at all.’ So we have come, as the saying goes, out of the lime-kiln into the coal-pit, from Marcion to Apelles, who, after falling in the flesh from Marcion’s discipline to a woman, and then being overturned in spirit by the virgin Philumene, took it upon himself at her prompting to preach a solid body of Christ, but without birth; and to that angel of Philumene’s the apostle will answer in the same words . . . . They confess that Christ truly had a body . . . . ‘He borrowed his flesh,’ they say, ‘from the stars and from the substances of the higher world,’ and they certainly argue that a body without birth is nothing to wonder at, since among us too angels have been able to come forth into flesh without any work of a womb . . . . You do not receive these things . . . . Let them prove that those angels conceived flesh from the stars . . . .”] In c. 7 Apelles appeals, against the church’s view of the flesh of Christ, to Christ’s word (Luke 8:20): “Quae mihi mater, et qui mihi fratres?” [Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?] “Audiat igitur Apelles, quid iam responsum sit a nobis Marcioni eo libello, quo evangelium ipsius provocavimus” [Let Apelles then hear what we have already answered to Marcion in the book in which we challenged his gospel] (adv. Marc. IV, 19) . . . . Apelles says: “Temptandi gratia nuntiaverant ei matrem et fratres, quos non habebat” [They had told him of a mother and brothers, whom he did not have, in order to test him] . . . . Tertullian, appealing against Apelles to John 7:5 (“the brothers of the Lord did not believe in him”), adds: “sicut evangelio ante Marcionem edito continetur” [as is contained in the gospel published before Marcion]; so he assumes that Apelles recognizes only Marcion’s gospel. In what follows Apelles and Marcion are also fought together, and of Luke 8:20 it is said (c. 8) that both see in this word of Jesus a chief support of their doctrine (“maxime instructi sibi videntur” [they think themselves best equipped]); but this support disappears, he says, if one explains the word “secundum veritatem integri et incorrupti evangelii” [according to the truth of the whole and uncorrupted gospel].

De carne 8: “Sed quoniam et isti Apelleiaci carnis ignominiam praetendunt maxime, quam volunt ab igneo illo praeside mali sollicitatis animabus adstructam et idcirco indignam Christo, et idcirco de sideribus illi substantiam competisse, debeo eos de sua paratura repercutere. angelum quendam inclitum nominant, qui mundum hunc instituerit et instituto eo paenitentiam admiserit (read admiscuerit). et hoc suo loco tractavimus [p. 327*] (nam est nobis et ad illos libellus¹⁾), an qui spiritum et voluntatem et virtutem Christi habuerit ad ea opera, dignum aliquid paenitentiae fecerit, cum angelum etiam figura erraticae ovis interpretantur. tunc igitur paenitentia institutoris sui peccatum erit mundus, siquidem omnis paenitentia confessio est delicti, quia locum non habet nisi in delicto.” [English: “But since these Apelleiaci too make the most of the shamefulness of the flesh, which they hold was built onto the souls by that fiery ruler of evil after they had been enticed, and is therefore unworthy of Christ, and that therefore his substance came to him from the stars, I must strike back at them with their own equipment. They name a certain renowned angel who founded this world and, once he had founded it, mixed repentance into it. And this too we have discussed in its place (for we have a little book against them as well): whether one who had the spirit and will and power of Christ for those works could have done anything that called for repentance, since they even interpret the angel by the figure of the straying sheep. Then the world will be a sin by the repentance of its founder, since every repentance is the confession of a fault, for it has no place except where there is a fault.”] Tertullian now thinks he must conclude that, even according to A., the flesh of Christ is sinful after all, since the stars (the “heavenly”) also belong to the world, which according to A. is a sinful substance because it is of sinful origin . . . . “(Carnem) nostram ut peccatricem Christo dedignantur inducere” [They refuse to put our flesh on Christ, as being sinful].

De resurr. carnis 2: “Aut nullius veritatis (haeretici) contendunt carnem secundum Marcionem et Basilidem, aut propriae qualitatis secundum haereses Valentini et Apellen.” [English: “(The heretics) contend that the flesh is either of no reality, following Marcion and Basilides, or of a quality of its own, following the heresies of Valentinus and Apelles.”]

De resurr. carnis 5: “Corpusculum istud (the human body), quod malum denique appellare non horrent, ignei alicuius exstructio angeli, ut Apelles docet.” [English: “This poor little body, which in the end they do not shrink from calling evil, the construction of some fiery angel, as Apelles teaches.”]

De anima 23: “Apelles sollicitatas refert animas terrenis escis de supercaelestibus sedibus ab igneo angelo, deo Israelis et nostro, qui exinde illis peccatricem circumfinxerit carnem.” [English: “Apelles reports that the souls were enticed by earthly foods from their seats above the heavens by a fiery angel, the God of Israel and ours, who thereupon fashioned sinful flesh around them.”]

De anima 36: “Apelles ante corpora constituens animas viriles ac muliebres, sicut a Philumena didicit, utique carnem ut posteriorem ab anima facit accipere sexum.” [English: “Apelles, who sets male and female souls before the bodies, as he learned from Philumene, certainly makes the flesh, as the later, receive its sex from the soul.”]

From Tertullian’s lost work “Adv. Apelleiacos” (see de carne 8 above) the following piece was copied into a now lost manuscript at Augustine, de haeres. 24 (it belongs, however, to 23); so it does not belong to Augustine’s text: “Hic (Apelles) praeterea Philumenen quandam puellam dicebat inspiratam divinitus ad praenuntianda futura, ad quam somnia et aestus animi sui referens divinationibus seu praesagiis eius secretim erat solitus praemoneri, eodem phantasmate eidem Philumenae pueri habitu se demonstrante, qui puer apparens Christum se aliquando, aliquando esse assereret Paulum, a quo phantasmate sciscitans ea soleret respondere quae se audientibus diceret. nonnulla quoque illam miracula operari solitam, inter [p. 328*] quae illud praecipuum, quod in angustissimi oris ampullam vitream panem grandem immitteret eumque extremis digitulis levare soleret illaesum, eoque solo quasi divinitus sibi cibo dato fuisset contenta.”¹⁾

[English: “He (Apelles) moreover spoke of a certain girl Philumene, divinely inspired to foretell things to come. He would bring his dreams and the stirrings of his mind to her, and he was accustomed to be forewarned in secret by her divinations or presages. A phantasm showed itself to this same Philumene in the form of a boy, and the boy, as he appeared, would declare that he was sometimes Christ and sometimes Paul; and she, questioning this phantasm, would give as answers what she then told her hearers. She was also accustomed to work certain miracles, chief among them this: she would put a large loaf into a glass flask with a very narrow mouth and lift it out unharmed with the tips of her fingers; and she was content with this alone for food, as if it had been given her by God.”]

[p. 328*]

3. Hippolytus

The report of Hippolytus in the “Syntagma against 32 Heresies” is to be recovered from Epiph., Haer. 44, Filastr. 47 and Pseudo-Tertullian, Adv. haer. 6. The last of these, however, also used another source, most probably Tertullian’s lost work adv. Apell. (see my work De Apellis gnosi monarchica, 1874).

Pseudotert. 6: “Post hos (Cerdonem et Marcionem) subsequitur Apelles, discipulus Marcionis, qui posteaquam in carnem suam lapsus est, a Marcione segregatus est. hic introducit unum deum ⟨in⟩ infinitis superioribus partibus. hunc potestates multas angelosque fecisse; propterea et aliam virtutem, quam dicit dominum dicit, sed angelum ponit; ⟨ab⟩ hoc vult videri mundum institutum ad imitationem mundi superioris, cui mundo permiscuisse paenitentiam, quia non illum tam perfecte fecisset quam ille superior mundus institutus fuisset. legem et prophetas repudiat. Christum neque in phantasmate dicit fuisse, sicut Marcion, neque in substantia veri corporis, ut evangelium docet, sed in eo, quod de superioribus partibus descenderit, ipso descensu sideream sibi carnem et aëream contexuisse. hunc in resurrectione singulis quibusque elementis quae in descensu suo mutuatus fuisset in ascensu reddidisse, et sic dispersis quibusque corporis sui partibus in caelum spiritum tantum reddidisse (rediisse?). hic carnis resurrectionem negat. solo utitur . . . . . . apostolo, sed Marcionis, id est non toto.²⁾ animarum solarum dicit salutem. habet praeterea privatas, sed extraordinarias lectiones suas, quas appellant ‘Phaneroseis,’ Philumenes cuiusdam puellae, quam quasi prophetissam [p. 329*] sequitur. habet praeterea suos libros, quos inscripsit ‘Syllogismorum,’ in quibus probare vult quod omnia, quaecunque Moyses de deo scripserit, vera non sint, sed falsa sint.”

[English: “After these (Cerdo and Marcion) follows Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, who, after he fell into sin in his flesh, was separated from Marcion. He brings in one God in the infinite higher regions. This God, he says, made many powers and angels; and so he also speaks of another power, which he calls lord, but makes it an angel; by this one he wishes the world to be taken as founded in imitation of the higher world, and he says that this power mixed repentance into this world, because he had not made it as perfectly as that higher world had been founded. He rejects the law and the prophets. He says that Christ was neither in a phantom, as Marcion says, nor in the substance of a true body, as the gospel teaches, but that, because he came down from the higher regions, in the very descent he wove himself a starry and airy flesh; that in the resurrection, as he ascended, he gave back to each of the elements what he had borrowed in his descent, and so, with all the parts of his body scattered, he gave back (returned?) only his spirit to heaven. He denies the resurrection of the flesh. He uses only . . . . . . the apostle, but Marcion’s, that is, not the whole. He speaks of the salvation of souls alone. He has besides private but extraordinary readings of his own, which they call ‘Phaneroseis’ (Revelations), of a certain girl Philumene, whom he follows as a prophetess. He has besides his own books, which he entitled ‘of Syllogisms,’ in which he wishes to prove that whatever Moses wrote about God is not true but false.”]

[p. 329*]

Filastr. 47: “Fuit Apelles discipulus eius (Marcionis), similia in quibusdam Marcioni praedicans, qui interrogatus a quibusdam, quo modo de fide sentiret, respondit: ‘Non mihi opus est discere a Marcione, ut duo principia adseram coaeterna; ego enim unum principium esse praedico, quem deum cognosco, qui deus fecit angelos, fecit etiam alteram virtutem, quem deum scio esse secundum, qui et virtus dei est, quae fecit mundum. hic autem deus, qui fecit mundum, non est,’ inquit, ‘bonus, ut ille qui fecit eum, subiectus autem est deo illi, a quo et factus est iste, qui et nutui et iussioni et praeceptis paret illius in omnibus’ . . . . Dicit autem Christum in carne apparuisse, non tamen, sicut Valentinus, de caelo carnem deposuisse (?). ait etiam post passionem non carnem surrexisse, sed de quattuor elementis, i. e. de sicco calido umido et frigido accepisse Christum et in resurrectione iterum reddidisse elementis quae de mundo acceperat, eaque in terram dimisisse, ipsum autem in caelum sine carne ascendisse adserit.”

[English: “Apelles was his (Marcion’s) disciple, preaching things like Marcion in some respects. Asked by certain people what he thought about the faith, he answered: ‘I have no need to learn from Marcion to assert two co-eternal principles; for I proclaim that there is one principle, whom I know as God; this God made the angels, and he also made another power, whom I know to be a second god, who is also a power of God, which made the world. But this god who made the world,’ he says, ‘is not good like the one who made him; yet he is subject to that God by whom he was made, and he obeys his nod, his command and his precepts in all things.’ . . . . He says that Christ appeared in the flesh, yet did not, as Valentinus says, bring flesh down from heaven (?). He also says that after the passion it was not flesh that rose, but that Christ had received (a body) from the four elements, that is, from dry, hot, moist and cold, and in the resurrection gave back again to the elements what he had received from the world and let it go to the earth; but he asserts that Christ himself ascended into heaven without flesh.”]

Epiphan., haer. 44, 1. Τοῦτον τὸν προειρημένον Λουκιανὸν διαδέχεται Ἀπελλῆς . . . . ἐξ οὗπερ Ἀπελληϊανοί, ὢν καὶ αὐτὸς συσχολαστὴς αὐτοῦ Λουκιανοῦ καὶ μαθητὴς τοῦ προειρημένου Μαρκίωνος . . . . ἕτερα δὲ οὗτος παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους βούλεται δογματίζειν, καὶ κατὰ μὲν τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ διδασκάλου ὁπλισάμενος ἑαυτὸν καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, εἰς τὸ συναγείρειν ἑαυτῷ καὶ αὐτὸς σχολὴν πεπλανημένων ἀνθρώπων, τὰ τοιαῦτα βούλεται δογματίζειν, φάσκων μὲν ὅτι οὐχ οὕτως, φησί, γεγένηται, ἀλλὰ πεπλάνηται Μαρκίων . . . . . Φάσκει γοῦν οὗτος ὁ προειρημένος Ἀπελλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶ τρεῖς ἀρχαὶ οὔτε δύο, ὡς τοῖς περὶ Λουκιανὸν καὶ Μαρκίωνα ἔδοξεν, ἀλλά, φησίν, εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς θεὸς καὶ μία ἀρχὴ καὶ μία δύναμις ἀκατονόμαστος· ᾧ ἑνὶ θεῷ ἤγουν μιᾷ ἀρχῇ οὐδὲν μεμέληται τῶν ἐνταῦθα ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ γεγενημένων, ἀλλὰ ὁ αὐτὸς ἅγιος ἄνωθεν θεὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς ἐποίησεν ἕνα ἄλλον θεόν· ὁ δὲ γενόμενος ἄλλος θεὸς ἔκτισε τὰ πάντα, οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. ἀπέβη δὲ οὐκ ἀγαθὸς καὶ τὰ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενόμενα, φησίν, οὐκ ἀγαθῶς εἰργασμένα, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ φαύλην διάνοιαν τὰ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἔκτισται . . . . .

[English: “This Lucian mentioned above is succeeded by Apelles . . . . from whom come the Apelleians; he was himself a fellow-student of this Lucian and a disciple of the Marcion mentioned above . . . . But he wishes to teach things different from the others; and having armed himself against his own teacher and against the truth, so as to gather a school of men led astray for himself too, he wishes to teach such things as these, saying: it is not so, he says, but Marcion has gone astray . . . . . So this Apelles mentioned above and his followers say that there are not three principles, nor two, as Lucian’s and Marcion’s people held, but, he says, there is one good God and one principle and one unnameable power; and this one God, that is, the one principle, cares nothing for the things that have come into being here in this world; but the same holy God from above, and good, made one other god; and the other god who came into being created all things, heaven and earth and everything in the world. But he turned out not good, and the things that came into being by him, he says, were not made well; the things made by him were created according to his own base mind . . . . .”]

[p. 330*]

2. Χριστὸν δὲ ἥκειν φησὶν ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν καιρῶν, υἱὸν ὄντα τοῦ ἄνω ἀγαθοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα ὡσαύτως, ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν εἰς γνῶσιν αὐτοῦ ἐρχομένων, καὶ ἐλθόντα οὐ δοκήσει πεφηνέναι, ἀλλὰ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ σάρκα εἰληφέναι, οὐκ ἀπὸ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, ἀλλὰ ἀληθινὴν μὲν ἐσχηκέναι τὴν σάρκα καὶ σῶμα, οὔτε ⟨δὲ⟩ ἀπὸ σπέρματος ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀπὸ γυναικὸς παρθένου, ἀλλὰ ἔσχεν μὲν σάρκα ἀληθινήν, τούτῳ ⟨δὲ⟩ τῷ τρόπῳ· καί, φησίν, ἐν τῷ ἔρχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπουρανίων ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν γῆν καὶ συνήγαγεν ἑαυτῷ ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων σῶμα . . . . ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ ξηροῦ τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ θερμοῦ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑγροῦ τὸ ὑγρὸν καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ψυχροῦ τὸ ψυχρὸν ⟨λαβὼν⟩ καὶ οὕτως πλάσας ἑαυτῷ σῶμα ἀληθινῶς πέφηνεν ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς τὴν ἄνω γνῶσιν, καταφρονεῖν τε τοῦ δημιουργοῦ καὶ ἀρνεῖσθαι αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα, ὑποδείξας ἡμῖν ἐν ποίᾳ γραφῇ ποῖά ἐστι τὰ φύσει ἐξ αὐτοῦ εἰρημένα καὶ ποῖά ἐστι τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ. “οὕτως γάρ,” φησίν, “ἔφη ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ· γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται· χρῶμαι γάρ,” φησίν, “ἀπὸ πάσης γραφῆς ἀναλέγων τὰ χρήσιμα.”¹⁾ εἶτα, φησίν, ἔδωκεν ὁ Χριστὸς ἑαυτὸν παθεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ σώματι καὶ ἐσταυρώθη ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀνέστη ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἔδειξεν αὐτὴν τὴν σάρκα τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς. καὶ ἀναλύσας, φησίν, αὐτὴν τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν ἑαυτοῦ ἀπεμέρισε πάλιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν στοιχείων τὸ ἴδιον ἀποδούς, τὸ θερμὸν τῷ θερμῷ, τὸ ψυχρὸν τῷ ψυχρῷ, τὸ ξηρὸν τῷ ξηρῷ, τὸ ὑγρὸν τῷ ὑγρῷ· καὶ οὕτως διαλύσας ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πάλιν τὸ ἔνσαρκον σῶμα ἀνέπτη εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, ὅθεν καὶ ἧκε . . . .

[English: “2. And he says that Christ came at the last times, being the son of the good God above, and likewise his Holy Spirit, for the salvation of those who come to the knowledge of him; and that when he came he did not appear in mere seeming, but took flesh in truth: not from Mary the virgin, but he had real flesh and a body, yet neither from the seed of a man nor from a virgin woman; he had real flesh, but in this way: in coming, he says, from the heavenly places he came to the earth and gathered to himself a body from the four elements . . . . For taking the dry from the dry, the hot from the hot, the moist from the moist and the cold from the cold, and so forming a body for himself, he truly appeared in the world and taught us the knowledge from above, and to despise the creator and to deny his works, showing us in which scripture which things are spoken by him by nature and which things come from the creator. ‘For thus,’ he says, ‘he spoke in the gospel: Become approved money-changers. For I make use,’ he says, ‘of what is useful, gathering it from every scripture.’ Then, he says, Christ gave himself up to suffer in that very body, and he was crucified in truth and buried in truth and rose in truth, and showed that very flesh to his disciples. And having dissolved, he says, his very becoming man, he shared it out again, giving back to each of the elements its own, the hot to the hot, the cold to the cold, the dry to the dry, the moist to the moist; and so, having again dissolved the fleshly body from himself, he flew up into heaven, from where he had also come . . . .”]

3. Τὰ ὅμοια δὲ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ ἐπιστάτῃ Μαρκίωνι περί τε τῆς ἄλλης σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοίως ἐδογμάτισεν, φάσκων μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσαπερ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔδοξεν ὁμοίως δογματίζειν. [English: “3. He taught things like his master Marcion about the rest of the flesh and other matters, saying that there is no resurrection of the dead; and as for the other things on earth, he thought fit to teach likewise.”]

Hippol., Refut. VII, 12: Ὅτι καὶ Ἀπελλῆς (like Lucanus) ⟨Μαρκίωνος⟩ γενόμενος μαθητὴς οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ τῷ διδασκάλῳ ἐδογμάτισεν, ἀλλὰ ἐκ φυσικῶν (!) δογμάτων κινηθεὶς τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ παντὸς ὑπέθετο.²⁾ [English: “That Apelles too, having become ⟨Marcion’s⟩ disciple, did not teach the same things as his teacher, but, moved by the doctrines of the natural philosophers (!), laid down a theory of the substance of the universe.”]

[p. 331*]

L. c. VII, 38: Ἀπελλῆς δὲ ἐκ τούτων γενόμενος (from Cerdo and Marcion) οὕτως λέγει· εἶναί τινα θεὸν ἀγαθόν, καθὼς καὶ Μαρκίων ὑπέθετο, τὸν δὲ πάντα κτίσαντα εἶναι δίκαιον, ὃς τὰ γενόμενα ἐδημιούργησε, καὶ τρίτον τὸν Μωσεῖ λαλήσαντα (πύρινον δὲ τοῦτον εἶναι), εἶναι δὲ καὶ τέταρτον ἕτερον, κακῶν αἴτιον· τούτους δὲ ἀγγέλους ὀνομάζει. νόμον δὲ καὶ προφήτας δυσφημεῖ, ἀνθρώπινα καὶ ψευδῆ φάσκων εἶναι τὰ γεγραμμένα, τῶν δὲ εὐαγγελίων ἢ τοῦ ἀποστόλου τὰ ἀρέσκοντα αὐτῷ αἱρεῖται. Φιλουμένης δέ τινος λόγοις προσέχει ὡς προφήτιδος φανερώσεσι. τὸν δὲ Χριστὸν ἐκ τῆς ὕπερθεν δυνάμεως κατεληλυθέναι, τουτέστι τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, κἀκείνου αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱόν· τοῦτον δὲ οὐκ ἐκ παρθένου γεγενῆσθαι οὐδὲ ἄσαρκον εἶναι φανέντα λέγει, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας μεταλαβόντα μερῶν σῶμα πεποιηκέναι, τουτέστι θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ καὶ ὑγροῦ καὶ ξηροῦ, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τῷ σώματι λαθόντα τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐξουσίας βεβιωκέναι ὃν ἐβίωσε χρόνον ἐν κόσμῳ· αὖθις δὲ ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνασκολοπισθέντα θανεῖν καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐγερθέντα φανῆναι τοῖς μαθηταῖς, δείξαντα τοὺς τύπους τῶν ἥλων καὶ τῆς πλευρᾶς, πείθοντα ὅτι αὐτὸς εἴη καὶ οὐ φάντασμα, ἀλλὰ ἔνσαρκος ἦν. “σάρκα,” φησί, “δείξας ἀπέδωκε γῇ, ἐξ ἧσπερ ἦν οὐσίας, μηδὲν ἀλλότριον πλεονεκτῶν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς καιρὸν χρησάμενος, ἑκάστοις τὰ ἴδια ἀπέδωκε, λύσας πάλιν τὸν δεσμὸν τοῦ σώματος, θερμῷ τὸ θερμόν, ψυχρῷ τὸ ψυχρόν, ὑγρῷ τὸ ὑγρόν, ξηρῷ τὸ ξηρόν, καὶ οὕτως ἐπορεύθη πρὸς τὸν ἀγαθὸν πατέρα, καταλιπὼν τὸ τῆς ζωῆς σπέρμα εἰς τὸν κόσμον διὰ τῶν μαθητῶν τοῖς πιστεύουσι.”

[English: “Apelles, who came from these, speaks thus: that there is a certain good God, as Marcion too supposed; that the one who created all things is just, he who fashioned the things that came into being; and a third, the one who spoke to Moses (this one is fiery); and that there is also another, a fourth, the cause of evils; these he calls angels. He speaks ill of the law and the prophets, saying that what is written is human and false; and of the gospels or the apostle he chooses what pleases him. He gives heed to the words of a certain Philumene as to the revelations of a prophetess. He says that Christ came down from the power above, that is, from the good one, and is that one’s son; that he was not born of a virgin, nor did he appear without flesh, but took portions from the substance of the universe and made a body, that is, of hot and cold and moist and dry, and in this body, hidden from the powers of the world, lived the time he lived in the world; that then, impaled by the Jews, he died, and after three days was raised and appeared to the disciples, showing the marks of the nails and of the side, persuading them that it was he himself and not a phantom, but that he was in the flesh. ‘Having shown the flesh,’ he says, ‘he gave it back to the earth, from whose substance it was, claiming nothing that belonged to another but using it for a time; he gave back to each its own, loosing again the bond of the body, to the hot the hot, to the cold the cold, to the moist the moist, to the dry the dry; and so he went to the good Father, leaving the seed of life in the world, through the disciples, for those who believe.’”]

L. c. X, 20: Ἀπελλῆς δὲ ὁ τούτου μαθητὴς ἀπαρεσθεὶς τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου εἰρημένοις, καθὰ προείπομεν, ἄλλῳ λόγῳ ὑπέθετο τέσσαρας εἶναι θεούς, ὧν ἕνα φάσκει ⟨ἀγαθόν⟩, ὃν οὔτε . . . οἱ προφῆται ἔγνωσαν, οὗ εἶναι υἱὸν τὸν Χριστόν· ἕτερον δὲ τὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦ παντός, ὃν οὐ θεὸν εἶναι θέλει, ἕτερον δὲ πύρινον τὸν φανέντα, ἕτερον δὲ πονηρόν· οὓς ἀγγέλους καλεῖ, προσθεὶς δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ πέμπτον ἐρεῖ. προσέχει δὲ βίβλῳ, ἣν Φανερώσεις καλεῖ Φιλουμένης τινός, ἣν προφῆτιν νομίζει. τὴν δὲ σάρκα τὸν Χριστὸν οὐκ ἐκ τῆς παρθένου λέγει προσειληφέναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς παρακειμένης τοῦ κόσμου οὐσίας. οὗτος κατὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν συντάγματα ἐποίησε, καταλύειν αὐτοὺς ἐπιχειρῶν ὡς ψευδῆ λελαληκότας καὶ θεὸν μὴ ἐγνωκότας· σάρκας τε ἀπόλλυσθαι ὁμοίως Μαρκίωνι λέγει.

[English: “Apelles, his pupil, displeased with what his teacher had said, as we said before, laid down by another account that there are four gods: one of whom he calls ⟨good⟩, whom neither . . . the prophets knew, and whose son Christ is; another, the creator of the universe, whom he will not have be a god; another, the fiery one who appeared; and another, an evil one; these he calls angels, and by adding Christ he will speak of a fifth. He gives heed to a book which he calls the Revelations of a certain Philumene, whom he considers a prophetess. He says that Christ took on flesh not from the virgin but from the substance of the world that lay at hand. He made treatises against the law and the prophets, attempting to overthrow them as men who had spoken falsehoods and had not known God; and he says, like Marcion, that the flesh perishes.”]

[p. 332*]

4. Origen¹⁾

For Origen, as for Tertullian, the Apelleians, together with the Marcionites, Valentinians and Basilidians, are the “insigniores et frequentiores haeretici” [the more notable and more numerous heretics], though in such a way that they stand, with the last-named, in second place. Origen very often names these heretics together in many of his writings (not seldom also M., Val. and Apel. without Basilides), and his knowledge of the doctrine of Apelles is direct and good. We would have still more samples of it if all of Origen’s works had survived; and indeed Ambrose and Jerome have preserved for us a good deal of Origen’s knowledge here (the former important things, the latter unimportant ones).

In Gen. hom. II (Lomm. T. VIII p. 102): Ἐπηπόρουν τινὲς εἰ δύναται ἡ τηλικαύτη κιβωτὸς χωρῆσαι κἂν τὸ πολλοστὸν μόριον τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς πάντων ζώων. καὶ μάλιστα Ἀπελλῆς ὁ τοῦ Μαρκίωνος γνώριμος καὶ γενόμενος ἑτέρας αἱρέσεως παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον πατήρ, ἀθετεῖν βουλόμενος ὡς οὐχ ἅγια τὰ Μωυσέως γράμματα, τοῦτο ἐπαπορήσας ἐπιφέρει τό· ψευδὴς ἄρα ὁ μῦθος· οὐκ ἄρα ἐκ θεοῦ ἡ γραφή. [English: “Some raised the difficulty whether an ark of that size could hold even the smallest fraction of all the animals on earth. And above all Apelles, the pupil of Marcion, who became the father of another heresy besides his, wishing to set aside the writings of Moses as not holy, raises this difficulty and adds: ‘So the story is false; so the scripture is not from God.’”] The same piece in Latin, p. 134 f.: “Obiciunt quidam quaestiones et praecipue Apelles, qui fuit discipulus quidem Marcionis, sed alterius haereseos magis quam eius, quam a magistro suscepit, inventor. is ergo dum assignare cupit, scripta Mosis nihil in se divinae sapientiae nihilque operis sancti spiritus continere, exaggerat huiusmodi dicta et dicit, nullo modo fieri potuisse, ut tam breve spatium tot animalium genera eorumque cibos, qui per totum annum sufficerent, capere potuisset. cum enim bina et bina ex immundis animalibus, h. e. bini masculi et binae feminae (hoc enim indicat sermo repetitus), ex mundis vero septena et septena, quod est paria septena in arcam dicantur inducta, quomodo, inquit, fieri potuit istud spatium, quod scriptum est, ut quatuor saltem elephantes capere potuerit? et posteaquam per singulas species hoc modo refragatur, addit super omnia his verbis: ‘Constat ergo fictam esse fabulam; quod si est, constat non esse a deo hanc scripturam.’” [English: “Certain people raise questions, and above all Apelles, who was indeed a disciple of Marcion, but rather the inventor of another heresy than of the one he received from his master. He, then, in his desire to show that the writings of Moses contain nothing of divine wisdom and nothing of the work of the Holy Spirit, enlarges on sayings of this kind and says that it could in no way have happened that so small a space could hold so many kinds of animals and their food, enough to last a whole year. For since two and two of the unclean animals, that is, two males and two females (for this is what the repeated word indicates), but seven and seven of the clean, that is, seven pairs, are said to have been brought into the ark, how, he asks, could that space, as it is written, have held even four elephants? And after he has objected in this way about each kind, he adds over and above everything, in these words: ‘It is clear, then, that the story is made up; and if so, it is clear that this scripture is not from God.’”] Origen tries to refute the objection

[p. 333*]

and then remarks: “Haec, quantum ad historiae pertinet rationem, adversum eos dicta sint, qui impugnare scripturas V. T. nituntur, tamquam impossibilia quaedam et irrationabilia continentes.” [English: “Let this be said, as far as the account of the history is concerned, against those who strive to attack the scriptures of the O. T. as containing things impossible and irrational.”]

Orig. in Ambrose, De paradiso V, 28: “Plerique enim, quorum auctor Apelles, sicut habes in XXXVIII. tomo eius, has quaestiones proponunt: ‘Quomodo lignum vitae plus operari videtur ad vitam quam insufflatio dei?’ Deinde: ‘Si hominem non perfectum fecit deus, unusquisque autem per industriam propriam perfectionem sibi virtutis adsciscit, nonne videtur plus sibi homo acquirere, quam ei deus contulit?’ Tertium obiciunt: ‘Et si homo non gustaverat mortem, utique quam non gustaverat, scire non poterat. ergo si non gustaverat, nesciebat, si nesciebat, timere non poterat. frustra igitur deus mortem pro terrore obiecit, quam homines non timebant.’”¹⁾ [For the English see the 1891 essay above, p. 112.]

The following pieces in the treatise de paradiso are also certainly drawn from Origen, and they reproduce objections of Apelles:

De paradiso VI, 30; VI, 31; VI, 32; VII, 35; VIII, 38 (at the end: “ergo non est scriptura ex deo.” hoc enim obiciunt qui V. non [p. 335*] recipiunt T. et has interserunt quaestiones) [“therefore the scripture is not from God.” For this is what those object who do not receive the Old Testament and who insert these questions]. [Harnack prints these five passages here in full, pp. 333*–335*, in nearly the same wording as in the 1891 essay above, pp. 116–117; for the Latin and the English see there.] In the refutation Ambrose (Origen) remarks among other things: “Si a deo factus est ille, ut dicunt, operator hominis, quomodo bonus deus operatorem mali fecit?” [If, as they say, that maker of man was made by God, how did the good God make the maker of evil?]

[p. 335*]

De parad. VIII, 40 and VIII, 41. [Printed in full by Harnack, as in the 1891 essay above, p. 117.] (Whether VI, 34; IX, 42; XI, 52 also go back to Apelles is at least doubtful.)

Orig., Hom. XVI, 3 in Gen. (Lomm. T. VIII p. 274), on c. 12:10: Apelles may be meant when Origen says that, in the judgment of some, the sermo scripturae divinae [language of divine Scripture] here is “incaute et imperite compositus” [carelessly and unskilfully put together].

Apelles may be meant (or Marcion; see there) when Orig., Hom. VII, 1 in Num. (T. X p. 54) says: “Haeretici, qui non recipiunt legem et prophetas detrahunt de Mose; denique solent ei etiam crimen impingere, dicentes, quia homicida fuit Mose, interfecit enim Aegyptium, et alia multa vel in ipsum vel in prophetas blasphemo ore concinnant” [English: “The heretics who do not receive the law and the prophets disparage Moses; indeed they are even accustomed to charge him with a crime, saying that Moses was a murderer, for he killed the Egyptian; and they put together many other things with blasphemous mouths against him or against the prophets”]; and likewise perhaps hom. XXVII, 2 in Num. (l. c. p. 336), on the “mansiones filiorum Israel” [stations of the children of Israel] on the journey through the desert, c. 33:1 ff.: “Quis audeat dicere, quod ea, quae [p. 336*] per verbum domini scribuntur, nihil utilitatis habeant nec salutis aliquid conferant, sed solam rem gestam narrent, quae tunc quidem praeterierit, nunc autem nihil ad nos ex eius relatione perveniat? impia haec et aliena a catholica fide sententia est et eorum tantummodo, qui legis et evangeliorum negant unum solum sapientem esse deum patrem domini nostri Jesu Christi.” [English: “Who would dare to say that the things written by the word of the Lord have no usefulness and give nothing toward salvation, but only tell of an event that passed away at the time, while nothing reaches us now from its telling? This is an impious view, foreign to the catholic faith, and it belongs only to those who deny that the one only wise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the God of the law and of the gospels.”]

[p. 336*]

Orig., Comm. in ep. ad Titum (T. V p. 283 ff.): “Sed et Apelles, licet non omnibus modis Dei esse deneget legem vel prophetas, tamen et ipse haereticus designatur, quoniam dominum hunc, qui mundum edidit, ad gloriam alterius ingeniti et boni dei eum construxisse pronuntiat; illum autem ingenitum deum in consummatione saeculi misisse Jesum Christum ad emendationem mundi, rogatum ab eo deo, qui eum (scil. mundum) fecerat, ut mitteret filium suum ad mundi sui correctionem.” [English: “But Apelles too, although he does not in every way deny that the law or the prophets belong to God, is nevertheless also marked as a heretic, because he declares that this lord, who brought forth the world, built it for the glory of the other God, the unbegotten and good; and that that unbegotten God, at the consummation of the age, sent Jesus Christ to amend the world, having been asked by the god who had made it (namely the world) to send his son to correct his world.”]

Orig., Comm. Ser. 46 in Matth. (T. IV p. 295): “Secundum Marcionis doctrinam, et secundum traditiones Valentini aut Basilidis longam fabulositatem, aut secundum Apellis adversus Paulum testimonium falsum.” [English: “According to the doctrine of Marcion, and according to the traditions of Valentinus or the long fable-spinning of Basilides, or according to the false witness of Apelles against Paul.”]

The Marcionite piece against circumcision quoted from Origen in the main account (Comm. II, 13 in Rom.) may come from Apelles. The same holds for the valuable piece Comm. II § 199 f. in Joh. and for the remark on Rom. 4:18 ff. (Comm. in Rom., in Journ. of Theol. Stud. XIII, 1911, p. 361; see also the piece before it).

Perhaps Comm. IX, 2 in Rom. (T. VII p. 296) refers to Apelles, where such heretics are spoken of “qui negant Christum in carne venisse et natum esse ex virgine, sed coeleste ei corpus assignant” [who deny that Christ came in the flesh and was born of the virgin, but assign him a heavenly body], and likewise, along with others, Hom. XIV in Luc. (T. V p. 134): “Negant dominum humanum habuisse corpus, sed coelestibus et spiritualibus fuisse contextum; . . . . de coelestibus, et ut illi falso asserunt, de sideribus et alia quadam spiritualique natura corpus eius fuerit.” [English: “They deny that the Lord had a human body, and say it was woven of heavenly and spiritual things; . . . . that his body was of heavenly things and, as they falsely assert, of the stars and of some other, spiritual nature.”]

Orig., Selecta in Psalm. (T. XII p. 73, preserved in Pamphilus’ Apology): “Quidam quidem dicebant, quod salvator noster adscendens e terris ad coelum et corpus suum adsumens pervenit usque ad eum circulum, qui solis zona nominatur, et ibi, aiunt, posuit tabernaculum corporis sui, non enim ultra erat possibile id progredi. sed haec illi ita sentiunt pro eo, quod allegoriam nolunt in scriptura divina recipere et ideo purae historiae [p. 337*] servientes huiusmodi fabulas et figmenta componunt.” [English: “Some said that our Saviour, ascending from the earth to heaven and taking up his body, came as far as the circle that is called the zone of the sun, and there, they say, he set down the tent of his body, for it was not possible for it to go further. But they think this because they will not accept allegory in divine Scripture, and so, slaves to the bare history, they put together fables and fictions of this kind.”] Either Apelles or Hermogenes.

[p. 337*]

Orig., Hom. XVIII, 9 in Jerem. p. 163 (Klostermann): Οἱ ἕνα μὲν τηροῦντες θεόν, ἐξουδενοῦντες δὲ τὰς προφητείας, οὐκ ἐδίψησαν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις. [English: “Those who hold to one God but set the prophecies at nothing did not thirst for the Spirit that is in the prophets.”]

Orig., c. Cels. V, 54: Ὁ Μαρκίωνος γνώριμος Ἀπελλῆς, αἱρέσεώς τινος γενόμενος πατὴρ καὶ μῦθον ἡγούμενος εἶναι τὰ Ἰουδαίων γράμματα, φησίν, ὅτι μόνος οὗτος (scil. Christ) ἐπιδεδήμηκε τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων. [English: “Apelles, Marcion’s pupil, who became the father of a certain heresy and held the writings of the Jews to be a myth, says that this one alone (namely Christ) has visited the race of men.”]

The statement in the Liber Praedest. 22 comes from Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen: “Hos (the sect of Apelles) Origenes ita perfecte superavit, ut eorum causa periodeutes fieret et per singulas quasque urbes per orientem eundo praedicaret” [Origen overcame these so completely that on their account he became a travelling preacher and preached as he went through every single city in the East]. The notice is not something anyone would invent, and besides, that Apology is expressly cited at the end of the section, though for a different statement.¹⁾

5. Cyprian

Ep. 73, 4: “Patripassiani, Anthropiani, Valentiniani, Appelletiani, Ophitae, Marcionitae et ceterorum haereticorum pestes” [Patripassians, Anthropians, Valentinians, Appelletians, Ophites, Marcionites, and the plagues of the other heretics]; cf. ep. 74, 7: “In tantum Stephani fratris nostri obstinatio dura prorupit, ut etiam de Marcionis baptismo, item Valentini et Appelletis et ceterorum blasphemantium in deum patrem contendat filios dei nasci” [The hard obstinacy of our brother Stephen has broken out so far that he contends that sons of God are born even from the baptism of Marcion, and likewise of Valentinus and Apelles and the rest who blaspheme against God the Father].

6. Firmilian in Cappadocia

In Cypr., ep. 75, 5: “. . . cum et Marcion Cerdonis discipulus inveniatur sero post apostolos . . . sacrilegam adversus deum traditionem induxisse, Appelles quoque blasphemiae eius consentiens multa alia nova et graviora fidei ac veritati inimica addiderit” [. . . since Marcion, the disciple of Cerdo, is found to have brought in, long after the apostles, a sacrilegious tradition against God, and Apelles too, agreeing with his blasphemy, added many other new and more serious things hostile to the faith and the truth]. (Valentinus and Basilides follow.)

7. Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia († under Diocletian), Ἐκ τῶν πρὸς Θεόδωρον περὶ τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας [From the writing to Theodore on the holy church]

[p. 338*]

In Cod. Ambros. H. 257 inf., Mercati (Rendic. del R. Istit. Lomb. di sc. et lett., Ser. II, Vol. 31, 1898, p. 1 ff.) discovered fragments of the writing named above; one of them runs: Παρὰ τοῦ Ἀπελλῆ, τοῦ μαθητοῦ Μαρκίωνος, ὃς στασιάσας πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ διδάσκαλον οὕτως ἔφη· Ψεύδεται Μαρκίων λέγων εἶναι ἀρχάς· ἐγὼ δέ φημι μίαν, ἥτις ἐποίησε δευτέραν ἀρχήν. [English: “From Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, who rose up against his own teacher and spoke thus: Marcion lies when he says that there are principles; but I say there is one, which made a second principle.”]

8. Theodoret

For Theodoret’s testimony see above, p. 292*; he depends on Rhodon (Eusebius) and Hippolytus.

9. Paul of Taron

Paul of Taron (end of the eleventh century), an Armenian writer, writes (see Karapet, Die Paulikianer p. 97): “A certain Apelles, a depraved man, old in body, embittered by his (long) life and proud of the help of the evil spirits, said of the prophets that their prophecies came about in opposition to the Holy Spirit (this follows Rhodon in Eusebius), and he laid down the following: the Mass that is offered for the dead is of no use. God damn him!”

The pseudo-Clementine Homilies take the same eclectic position toward the OT as Apelles, and like Apelles they appeal for it to the apocryphal saying of the Lord about the money-changers (see above in Epiph., and Hom. Clem. II, 51: Εἰ οὖν τῶν γραφῶν ἃ μέν ἐστιν ἀληθῆ, ἃ δὲ ψευδῆ, εὐλόγως ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν ἔλεγεν· Γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι, ὡς τῶν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς τινῶν μὲν δοκίμων ὄντων λόγων, τινῶν δὲ κιβδήλων [English: “If, then, of the scriptures some things are true and some false, our teacher rightly said: Become approved money-changers, since among the words in the scriptures some are genuine and some counterfeit”]). It is therefore probable that they knew writings of Apelles, or the “Syllogisms.” In that case, the section following II, 51 probably goes back to Apelles: there the biblical tradition is called lying when it says that Adam, who came forth from the hand of God, committed the Fall, that Noah was drunk, that Abraham had three wives and Jacob four (two sisters among them), and that Moses was a murderer (II, 52). In his own manner, this does not prevent the author of the Homilies from polemicizing on the other side against doctrines of Apelles; so it is evidently his doctrine that is characterized in III, 2 as follows: μὴ τοῦτον εἶναι θεὸν ἀνώτατον, ὃς οὐρανὸν ἔκτισε καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ ἄλλον τινὰ ἄγνωστον καὶ ἀνώτατον ὡς ἐν ἀπορρήτοις ὄντα θεὸν θεῶν· ὃς δύο ἔπεμψε θεούς, ἀφ᾽ [p. 339*] ὧν ὁ μὲν εἷς ἐστιν ὁ κόσμον κτίσας, ὁ δὲ ἕτερος ὁ τὸν νόμον δούς [English: “that this one, who created heaven and earth and everything in them, is not the highest God, but another, unknown and highest, the God of gods as it were in secret; who sent two gods, of whom the one is he who created the world and the other he who gave the law”]; cf. XVIII, 12: οὐ λέγομεν δύο ἀπεστάλθαι ἀγγέλους, τὸν μὲν ἐπὶ τῷ κτίσαι κόσμον, τὸν δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ θέσθαι τὸν νόμον [English: “we do not say that two angels were sent, the one to create the world and the other to lay down the law”].

[p. 339*]

III, 50 (where the saying about the money-changers is quoted again), XVI, 6 ff., and much of XVII and XVIII may also go back to a writing of Apelles; but no higher degree of probability can be reached here.

In the heresiologies the name of Apelles is handed on (following Epiph. and Filastr.); there is no need to go into this. (Augustine [de haer. 23] and Praedest. [22] report that Christ formed his body from the elements of the world and after the resurrection gave it back to the world [to the air].) Already Pacian of Barcelona knows nothing more of the history of the Marcionite movement when he gives the order (ad Sempron. I, 1) “Apelles, Marcion, Valentinus, Cerdo”; nor does it mean anything that he speaks (I, 9; see above p. 309* f.) of “Apelliaci,” whom he picked up from Tertullian or Cyprian.