The so-called Johannine thunderbolt.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The so-called Johannine thunderbolt.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

On page 9 of his article, "Johannine Thunderbolt or Synoptic Seed," Mark Goodacre argues, in the course of trying to demonstrate that Matthew 11.25-27 = Luke 10.21-22 (which has been called "a Johannine thunderbolt from a clear synoptic sky") is actually the inspiration for Johannine christology and not a tapping into it by Matthew, that Matthew 11.27b follows the same pattern or rhythm as other sayings in the gospel of Matthew:

No one knows the son except the father and no one knows the father except the son and those to whom the son chooses to reveal him: It is worth noting that this kind of construction is found elsewhere in Matthew. Michael Goulder calls it a "repetitive converse logion":

5.19: "Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
6.14-15: "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
16.18: "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Goodacre footnotes page 298 of Goulder's Midrash and Lection in Matthew, but Goulder does not list Matthew 11.27b as an example of his "repetitive converse logion" — though of course he is not trying to be exhaustive, either. Goulder does offer another example, which Goodacre does not list above:

Matthew 6.19-21: 19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Taking all of these sayings together (except for the Thunderbolt, just for a moment), we notice a distinctive pattern of contradictions or opposites. Each saying contrasts two opposite introductory clauses (whoever breaks a commandment versus whoever does them; if you forgive versus if you do not forgive; whatever you bind versus whatever you loose; and not storing treasures on earth versus storing them in heaven) and two opposite concluding clauses (called least in the kingdom versus called greatest in the kingdom; your father forgiving you versus your father not forgiving you; something being bound in heaven versus something being loosed in heaven; and moth and rust corroding versus moth and rust not corroding). The pattern is +X, +Y; -X, -Y.

It is obvious, once we lay out this pattern, that Matthew 11.27b does not exactly fit it: "No one knows the son except the father and no one knows the father except the son." This is -X, +Y; -Y, +X. Also, all the other sayings had two complete clauses, each with its own verb(s), in each half of the saying; this one contains only one verb per half (though perhaps we could imagine "except the father" being filled out as "except that the father does," an ungainly construction which Matthew wisely avoids).

I cannot say that I have convinced myself in either direction on this issue, but I think that the form of the saying is not quite as clearly Matthean as Goodacre seems to think it is.

Worthy insights welcome, of course.

Ben.

PS: May as well give the texts themselves:

Matthew 11.25-27: 25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. 26 Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

Luke 10.21-22: 21 At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, "I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 22 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

Some relevant Johannine material:

John 3.35: 35 "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand."

John 5.19-23, 26-27: 19 Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and greater works than these will He show Him, that you may marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. .... 26 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.

John 8.28: 28 Jesus therefore said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me."

John 14.13: 13 "And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

John 17.1-2: 1 These things Jesus spoke; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee, 2 even as Thou gavest Him authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given Him, He may give eternal life."

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The so-called Johannine thunderbolt.

Post by Secret Alias »

One of my usual tangential observations. The degree of variation in early Christianity for these two parts (I see this as potentially two separate components fused together in the Matthew/Luke tradition) is staggering. The first part (I thank thee ...) is literally cited in about dozen different ways in early literature. So too with the second part - "no one knows ..." Both appear in two dozen different variations and combinations. The fact that Matthew and Luke appear together as a basic set in my mind argues for an attempt at standardization on the part of Irenaeus. Indeed Irenaeus originally argued for a synoptic tradition - a combined synoptic witness no less - ""No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same." On top of the Markan witness Irenaeus mentions the followers of Mark (the gnostic) took a deep interest in this material.

Now none of this has anything specifically to do with Goodacre's discussion - but I think its important to refocus our attention on the attempt at standardization. Originally Irenaeus argued that a Johannine passage was in all the synoptic gospels (but not in John oddly enough). My guess is that Irenaeus either had a hand in writing John or 'redistributed' Johannine passages in the synoptic tradition in order to achieve his stated (implicitly) goal of ecumenism. 'All the gospels beside John speak Johannine-ly' he says effectively. They all say it together. My guess is the passage comes from ur-John, a gospel which clearly contained synoptic passages. Maybe ur-John was the Gospel of Truth of the Valentinian tradition. That would perfectly square the circle.

Anyway my random tangential thoughts. Probably not useful. Oh one more thing. I wish Goodacre just used his vast knowledge and expertise to observe phenomena and comment 'from the heart' rather than use them as arguments on behalf of his Q-doesn't exist agenda. I hate systematizers. I hate party men. I hate people with agendas. I don't want restaurant recommendations from vegetarians or vegans unless I ask for a vegetarian or vegan restaurant. I just want to experience good food. I just want to read brilliant scholarship. I don't like being manipulated or being co-opted into a movement or an agenda.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The so-called Johannine thunderbolt.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:41 pmOh one more thing. I wish Goodacre just used his vast knowledge and expertise to observe phenomena and comment 'from the heart' rather than use them as arguments on behalf of his Q-doesn't exist agenda. I hate systematizers. I hate party men. I hate people with agendas. I don't want restaurant recommendations from vegetarians or vegans unless I ask for a vegetarian or vegan restaurant. I just want to experience good food. I just want to read brilliant scholarship. I don't like being manipulated or being co-opted into a movement or an agenda.
Okay, I can sympathize here. I absolutely love most of what Goodacre writes, because he is very erudite and can express himself clearly, but yes, he seems to default automatically to a simple template and then defend it come what may. His reconstruction of gospel relationships is one of the simplest available, and I think its sublime simplicity can blind him to the complications which his own methodology should point out to him.

But hey, I should be able to identify the shortcomings of pretty much anybody with whom I fail to agree on every single item down the line, right? If I could not find a shortcoming, I would probably be agreeing with him or her.

You call Goodacre a systematizer and a party man, but I wonder whether he might not think of you as an obfuscator and a rebel without a cause. ;)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The so-called Johannine thunderbolt.

Post by Secret Alias »

Sure - a madman too. But I always dance on the edge of an abyss WHICH IS REAL AND ACTUALLY EXISTS. We're all going to die and unless you think your God is going to reward you for all your stupid selfish activities it's more truthful to acknowledge the abyss and stop pretending there are causes worth distracting yourself for. Again that's my point of view - creative nihilism.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The so-called Johannine thunderbolt.

Post by Secret Alias »

BTW I learned today at the bank that 'Merci' (the French word) is the way you say 'Thank you' in Farsi. Just like Ciao migrated to Spanish. Another random thought acknowledging the abyss.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The so-called Johannine thunderbolt.

Post by Secret Alias »

So to repeat, I think Goodacre is a fabulous scholar. I think it is 'cool' that he has found a 'niche' in the 'industry' - i.e. Q doesn't exist and Q may not in fact exist whereby all his efforts might indeed deserve him being accorded an academic savior of sorts (because he saved us from something 'evil'). However - as in the case of mythicism - defeating the Q hypothesis doesn't necessarily allow for what he seems to imply from that victory - i.e. that canonical Mark is all there is. You can see why, for instance, he 'encouraged' one of his underlings to basically slander a dead scholar (Morton Smith). I take that to be akin to Republican support for an accused child molester - i.e. the ends justify the means. But I don't 'hate' Goodacre as a result. I think that taken from the point of view of 'the business of academia' - 'a win' for anti-Q is a win. But it is undoubtedly the most extreme example of how having an agenda is dangerous no matter how absurdly esoteric that danger is.

That said the passage(s) in question - I am open to the two passages originally being separate or separated in a pre-canonical gospel - are extremely interesting. The Johannine character of the 'second part' (or 'second passage' if the two are separate sayings) would have escaped me but is quite fascinating. I guess because I am less dogmatic I would likely have differed in my approach noting - I think quite innocently (although I am sure a similar charge of 'hobby horsing' could be leveled at me too) - (a) the heretical association with the second part 'no one knew' as opposed to 'no one knows' https://books.google.com/books?id=Sj5gC ... 22&f=false and (b) the apparent change of object of the knowing - i.e. the Father vs the Son.

As I noted in a previous post the LXX Ex 33:13 makes explicit that Moses knew the Son (according to the standard early Christian association between 'the Son' and the being/man who meets all the patriarchs viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3696. So the idea that 'the Son' wasn't known to previous generations is a simple factual impossibility. Moses knew the Son, Jacob knew the Son (perhaps even in a quasi-'Biblical sense' i.e. the Son 'sexually molested him') etc. So the real question, the question I happen to be interested in, is clear - there was an earlier version of this saying where the Father was unknown which is the cornerstone of heresy in early Christianity. For whatever reason Irenaeus didn't 'dig' this idea (undoubtedly because of its implications on monarchianism viz. two powers in heaven). But does this in itself prove the existence of not only a god before god (I think it does for early Christians) but a gospel before the (synoptic) gospels? Yes, I think it does too and so perhaps part of Goodacre's partisan interest exposed too.

For whatever reason Goodacre's 'scholarly niche' dovetails with Irenaeus. I think I have wrongly assumed that Goodacre 'must be' a Christian or have some apologetic reason for his perspective. It might be true but now I think it isn't necessarily true. Sometimes a vegetarian chef just has this crazy idea pop into his head about how to cook meat and 'goes with it' because it will make him stand out, be excellent and famous. I don't doubt that ideas come to unsuspecting recipients and they 'go with the moment' - they were chosen to be the herald of that idea. I tend to look at things now the other way as I get on in years. If you can 'get' one pretty woman that doesn't mean she's the one for you. It probably means that you are 'attractive' and can get lots of pretty women. When I was younger though it meant to me what the Q idea perhaps meant to Goodacre. My advice or assumption though is that Goodacre is he kept himself 'open' might have had thousands of ideas all disagreeing with one another in a glorious intellectual cacophony and we might end up richer because of it. I guess I am selfish.

It all comes down to the same thing - how much truth can a soul bear, how much truth can a soul dare ... that became for me more and more the real measure of value
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The so-called Johannine thunderbolt.

Post by Secret Alias »

I would like to take a poll of knowledgeable members of the forum (that's a clue this is an appeal that has nothing to do with mythicism). Who thinks that these three logia were necessarily said together by Jesus (or conversely written down together by the original gospel writer):

logion 1: “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

logion 2: “All things have been committed to me by my Father.

logion 3: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Yes I can see the logic of how this worked as a united in Matthew, Luke and Mark originally. It confirms that (a) Jesus was the Son (b) there was a Father and it implies that (c) Jesus was a little child (which is significant perhaps when Jesus speaks of the 'least' in the kingdom because it seems to imply that Jesus was this 'least' figure. But it's just too neatly packaged and too explicit. I would have expected more nuance and mystery.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The so-called Johannine thunderbolt.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:15 pm I would like to take a poll of knowledgeable members of the forum (that's a clue this is an appeal that has nothing to do with mythicism). Who thinks that these three logia were necessarily said together by Jesus (or conversely written down together by the original gospel writer):

logion 1: “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

logion 2: “All things have been committed to me by my Father.

logion 3: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Yes I can see the logic of how this worked as a united in Matthew, Luke and Mark originally. It confirms that (a) Jesus was the Son (b) there was a Father and it implies that (c) Jesus was a little child (which is significant perhaps when Jesus speaks of the 'least' in the kingdom because it seems to imply that Jesus was this 'least' figure. But it's just too neatly packaged and too explicit. I would have expected more nuance and mystery.
Without having dedicated enough time yet to this particular set of sayings, just off the cuff, logia 1 and 3 look like separate sayings to me, while logion 2 looks like something composed to glue the two together.

Logion 1 is similar to 1 Corinthians 1.18-25. It comes across as a justification of Christianity's typical reversals (not the rich but the poor; the last will be first; and so on).

Logion 3 sounds more gnostic to me: the issue is who is able to know the father.

Logion 1 compares humans to humans (wise men to children); logion 3 compares humans to God (the former being unable to know him without a mediator).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The so-called Johannine thunderbolt.

Post by Secret Alias »

Those are all my observations ... so poll closed. I win! No need for further discussion
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The so-called Johannine thunderbolt.

Post by Secret Alias »

But if I was to say more I'd note that the purposed construction of what seems to be three separate and possibly disjointed sayings in this particular order also has the centonized feel that we keep hearing about in Irenaeus (and later Tertullian):
Then, again, collecting a set of expressions and names scattered here and there [in Scripture], they twist them, as we have already said, from a natural to a non-natural sense. In so doing, they act like those who bring forward any kind of hypothesis they fancy, and then endeavour to support(1) them out of the poems of Homer, so that the ignorant imagine that Homer actually composed the verses bearing upon that hypothesis, which has, in fact, been but newly constructed; and many others are led so far by the regularly-formed sequence of the verses, as to doubt whether Homer may not have composed them. Of this kind(2) is the following passage, where one, describing Hercules as having been sent by Eurystheus to the dog in the infernal regions, does so by means of these Homeric verses,-- for there can be no objection to our citing these by way of illustration, since the same sort of attempt appears in both:--

"Thus saying, there sent forth from his house deeply groaning."-- Od., x. 76. "The hero Hercules conversant with mighty deeds."--Od., xxi. 26. Eurystheus, the son of Sthenelus, descended from Perseus."--Il., xix. 123. "That he might bring from Erebus the dog of gloomy Pluto."--Il., viii. 368. "And he advanced like a mountain-bred lion confident of strength."--Od., vi. 130. "Rapidly through the city, while all his friends followed."--Il., xxiv. 327. "Both maidens, and youths, and much-enduring old men."--Od., xi. 38. "Mourning for him bitterly as one going forward to death."--Il., xxiv. 328. "But Mercury and the blue-eyed Minerva conducted him."--Od., xi. 626. "For she knew the mind of her brother, how it laboured with grief."--Il., ii. 409.

Now, what simple-minded man, I ask, would not be led away by such verses as these to think that Homer actually framed them so with reference to the subject indicated? But he who is acquainted with the Homeric writings will recognise the verses indeed, but not the subject to which they are applied, as knowing that some of them were spoken of Ulysses, others of Hercules himself, others still of Priam, and others again of Menelaus and Agamemnon. But if he takes them and restores each of them to its proper position, he at once destroys the narrative in question. In like manner he also who retains unchangeable(3) in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognise the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them. For, though he will acknowledge the gems, he will certainly not receive the fox instead of the likeness of the king. But when he has restored every one of the expressions quoted to its proper position, and has fitted it to the body of the truth, he will lay bare, and prove to be without any foundation, the figment of these heretics.
It just seems to be to me that someone - perhaps a gnostic, perhaps a heretic, perhaps an orthodox - assembled a string of logia in this particular order to reinforce a certain understanding about what the sayings should be taken to mean.

We know this took 'centonizing' took place. We know that Justin used a harmony gospel. It's clear. We know he wasn't alone (Trobisch used to always make reference to some sort of link between the gospel harmonies and the lectionaries which I never quite 'got' because I was too dense or lazy or lacked an adequate attention span). When you put these harmonies up against the synoptics it is clear that someone took the sayings from one source and strung them together in a different arrangement in the other (i.e. subset A - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John subset B - the gospel harmony). I don't know. It just seems to me that we already know there was an ur-gospel A and a derived format B - either the four canonical gospels existed as a 'pre-cosmic unit' for the gospel harmony or vice versa (as the Syriac title for the canonical 4 implies - viz. 'the separated gospels' (Evangelion Dampharshe).

All things being equal you say 'well the gospel harmony is derived from the canonical gospels, after all it is called a gospel harmony.' But that's what those who promoted, supported, accepted the canonical 4 labeled the other text. This clear. The name isn't decisive. The label isn't what Justin called his text. And Justin is earlier than everyone. Isn't it odd that he used a gospel harmony and then a generation or two later Irenaeus comes out with the canonical 4.

So perhaps someone might conclude - it's a draw. Maybe the super gospel (to avoid using 'gospel harmony' as a prejudiced terminology) was first, may be the canonical 4. But what I think is decisive is what Irenaeus says about the heretics. They worshiped the quarterion. The first friggin thing out of his mouth about the heretics in Adv Haer:

This Nous they call also Monogenes, and Father, and the Beginning of all Things. Along with him was also produced Aletheia; and these four constituted the first and first-begotten Pythagorean Tetrad, which they also denominate the root of all things [AH 1.1.1]

And another specific group of Valentinians:

There are also some who maintain that he also produced Christ as his own proper son, but of an animal nature, and that mention was made of him by the prophets. This Christ passed through Mary just as water flows through a tube; and there descended upon him in the form of a dove it the time of his baptism, that Saviour who belonged to the Pleroma, and was formed by the combined efforts of all its inhabitants. In him there existed also that spiritual seed which proceeded from Achamoth. They hold, accordingly, that our Lord, while preserving the type of the first-begotten and primary tetrad, was compounded of these four substances, (1) of that which is spiritual, in so far as He was from Achamoth; (2) of that which is animal, as being from the Demiurge by a special dispensation, inasmuch as He was formed [corporeally] with unspeakable skill; (3) and of the Saviour, as respects that dove which descended upon Him. (I don't see the fourth element any longer).

And among the followers of Mark:
He declares that the infinitely exalted Tetrad descended upon him from the invisible and indescribable places in the form of a woman
Irenaeus says that it is easy to develop a cento. He demonstrates this by himself manufacturing a Homeric cento. He then says gospels were manufactured by others using the techniques of the cento poems ... but ... if you were going to develop a cento gospel for the heretics (remember the cento gospel was developed as an appeal to the heretics) the obvious way you'd go about it was to develop a tetrad gospel. The worship of the tetrad runs so deep in the communities.

1. the basic form is preserved by Mark - 1 cosmic tetrad corresponding the basic scientific belief at the time that there were four primal 'elements' (στοιχεῖον) air, earth, water, fire - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element
2. the heretics who understood 'Christ' to have come through a tube to Mary's womb with a tetrad being completed with the cosmic 'Savior' (not Christ) came down on Jesus in the water had a different system.
3. the Valentinians in all there permutations and combinations had two tetrads - in other words a more complex system built from the primitive tetrad worship of the followers of Mark.

But the point is:

1. given the worship of the tetrad
2. given Irenaeus's statement about the refashioning of cento gospels going on among the heretics

It stands to reason that the four gospel set we inherited must have originated either among the heretics (i.e. a 'heretic' or 'sectarian' who wanted the canon to conform with the cosmic στοιχεῖον) perhaps out of Justin's ur-'super gospel.' Sometimes in Irenaeus's argumentation there is a sense that the four gospels are proved to go back to the cosmic tetrad because of the four principal heresies (i.e. one gospel for each Matthew = Ebionites, Mark = the impassable heretics (who strangely thought of Christ coming down into Mary's womb even though Mark doesn't have a virgin narrative), Luke = the Marcionites, John = the Valentinians).

Hmmm.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply