Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

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:

Re: Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote:Adolf von Harnack notes that Eusebius calls the work τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Crawford says Ammonius' work was titled "the Diatessaron-Gospel." But they all go back to this stupid idea that Eusebius's tables make clear that Ammonius's work also took the form of tables.
Eusebius seems pretty clear that the tables were his own idea, inspired by the adjacent blocks or columns in Ammonius. Eusebius did not like the idea of presenting the "other three" gospel texts out of their chronological/literary order. The tables can sit at the beginning or the end of a manuscript (as they often do) and serve as a handy reference tool.

What I wonder about the Commentary on John on your view is this: if it was originally part of a larger Commentary on a Diatessaronic text as a whole, culled out from that whole and turned artificially into a Commentary on John alone, and if this was also done to the Commentary on Matthew... then why leave all the crossover material? Why leave so much unique to John in the Commentary on Matthew, and so much unique to Matthew in the Commentary on John? (There is actually a chapter in the Commentary on John entitled "Of the Conversation Between John and Jesus at the Baptism, Recorded by Matthew Only". I am not saying that the title is original, but the contents, albeit short, are indeed mainly about Matthew with a touch of Luke; why was this chapter not in the Commentary on Matthew by the time Eusebius or whoever was done?)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith »

The comments attributed to Heracleon in the Commentary on John also mix Matthean or synoptic stuff in with the Johannine. Fragment 5, for example, from book VI:

The Word is the Savior, the voice in the wilderness is that symbolized by John, and the echo is the whole prophetic order. . . A voice which is well fitted to the Word, becomes Word, just as a woman is transformed into a man. . . The echo can be changed in a similar way into a voice, giving the place of a disciple to the voice which is changed into Word., but the place of a slave to the echo which is changed into voice. . . When the Savior speaks of a prophet and Elijah [Matthew 11:9,14], he is speaking not of John himself, but of his attributes. But when he calls him greater than the prophets and than those who are born of women [Matthew 11:9,11], then he is describing the character of John himself. When John is asked about himself, his answers relate to himself, not to attributes. . . His attributes, like clothes, were other than himself. If he were asked about his clothes “Are you your clothes?” he would not have answered "Yes." . . . The Jews sent priests and Levites to question John because it was fitting for these people to concern themselves with, and investigate these matters, for they were firmly devoted to God, and because he (John) was of the Levitical tribe. . . They asked him if he were a prophet, wishing to know this more general fact [John 1:21]. . . It was prophetically arranged that Isaiah would call him (John) “greater,” since no other of all those who prophesied was deemed worthy of this honor by God.

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

Re: Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

Surely the fact that Eusebius says X doesn't mean it's true.
“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: Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

Wasn't Heracleon also supposed to have written a 'Commentary on Luke" or at least Lukan material? I am pretty sure that's floating around somewhere.
“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
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote:Adolf von Harnack notes that Eusebius calls the work τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Crawford says Ammonius' work was titled "the Diatessaron-Gospel." But they all go back to this stupid idea that Eusebius's tables make clear that Ammonius's work also took the form of tables.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Eusebius seems pretty clear that the tables were his own idea, inspired by the adjacent blocks or columns in Ammonius. Eusebius did not like the idea of presenting the "other three" gospel texts out of their chronological/literary order. The tables can sit at the beginning or the end of a manuscript (as they often do) and serve as a handy reference tool.

What I wonder about the Commentary on John on your view is this: if it was originally part of a larger Commentary on a Diatessaronic text as a whole, culled out from that whole and turned artificially into a Commentary on John alone, and if this was also done to the Commentary on Matthew... then why leave all the crossover material? Why leave so much unique to John in the Commentary on Matthew, and so much unique to Matthew in the Commentary on John? (There is actually a chapter in the Commentary on John entitled "Of the Conversation Between John and Jesus at the Baptism, Recorded by Matthew Only". I am not saying that the title is original, but the contents, albeit short, are indeed mainly about Matthew with a touch of Luke; why was this chapter not in the Commentary on Matthew by the time Eusebius or whoever was done?)
These Commentaries were [originally] Origen's ??

Could they have been subsequently doctored? by Pamphilus? by Eusebius? or by scribes or 'students of theirs?

and they remain as evidence of some kind of incomplete redaction? or evidence of redaction?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote:Wasn't Heracleon also supposed to have written a 'Commentary on Luke" or at least Lukan material? I am pretty sure that's floating around somewhere.
I think all we have is a couple of quotations of Heracleon by Alexandrian fathers that suggest Heracleon knew Luke. Whether the quotations come from an entire commentary on Luke is, I think, unknown.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith »

This must be one of them. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 4.9:

Περὶ δὲ τοῦ μαρτυρίου διαρρήδην ὁ κύριος εἴρηκεν, καὶ τὰ διαφόρως γεγραμμένα συντάξωμεν· «λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, πᾶς ὃς ἐὰν ὁμο- λογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁμολογήσει ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ· τὸν δὲ ἀρνησάμενόν με ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπαρνήσομαι αὐτὸν ἔμπρο- σθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων.» «ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἐπαισχυνθῇ με ἢ τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ μοιχαλίδι καὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀν- θρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται αὐτόν, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ.» «πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμ- προσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς.» «ὅταν δὲ φέρωσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας, μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε πῶς ἀπολογηθῆτε ἢ τί εἴπητε· τὸ γὰρ ἅγιον πνεῦμα διδάξει ὑμᾶς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ τί δεῖ εἰπεῖν.» Τοῦτον ἐξηγούμενος τὸν τόπον Ἡρακλέων ὁ τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς δοκιμώτατος κατὰ λέξιν φησὶν ὁμολογίαν εἶναι τὴν μὲν ἐν πίστει καὶ πολιτείᾳ, τὴν δὲ ἐν φωνῇ. «ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐν φωνῇ ὁμολογία καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν γίνεται, ἣν μόνην, φησίν, ὁμολογίαν ἡγοῦνται εἶναι οἱ πολλοὶ οὐχ ὑγιῶς, δύνανται δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν καὶ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ὁμολογεῖν. ἀλλ' οὐδ' εὑρεθήσεται οὗτος ὁ λόγος καθο- λικῶς εἰρημένος· οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ σῳζόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν τὴν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογίαν καὶ ἐξῆλθον, ἐξ ὧν Ματθαῖος, Φίλιππος, Θωμᾶς, Λευῒς καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί. καὶ ἔστιν ἡ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογία οὐ καθολική, ἀλλὰ μερική. καθολικὴ δὲ ἣν νῦν λέγει, ἡ ἐν ἔργοις καὶ πράξεσι καταλλήλοις τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίστεως. ἕπεται δὲ ταύτῃ τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ ἡ μερικὴ ἡ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν, ἐὰν δέῃ καὶ ὁ λόγος αἱρῇ. ὁμολογήσει γὰρ οὗτος καὶ τῇ φωνῇ, ὀρθῶς προομολογήσας πρότερον τῇ διαθέσει. καὶ καλῶς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ὁμολογούντων «ἐν ἐμοὶ» εἶπεν, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀρνουμένων τὸ «ἐμὲ» προσέθηκεν. οὗτοι γάρ, κἂν τῇ φωνῇ ὁμολογήσωσιν αὐτόν, ἀρνοῦνται αὐτόν, τῇ πράξει μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες. μόνοι δ' ἐν αὐτῷ ὁμολογοῦσιν οἱ ἐν τῇ κατ' αὐτὸν πολιτείᾳ καὶ πράξει βιοῦντες, ἐν οἷς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁμολογεῖ ἐνει- λημμένος αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐχόμενος ὑπὸ τούτων. διόπερ ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτὸν οὐδέποτε δύνανται· ἀρνοῦνται δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μὴ ὄντες ἐν αὐτῷ. οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν «ὃς ἀρνήσηται ἐν ἐμοί», ἀλλ' «ἐμέ»· οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε ὢν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀρνεῖται αὐτόν. τὸ δὲ «ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων,» καὶ τῶν σῳζομένων καὶ τῶν ἐθνικῶν δὲ ὁμοίως παρ' οἷς μὲν καὶ τῇ πολιτείᾳ, παρ' οἷς δὲ καὶ τῇ φωνῇ. [διόπερ ἀρνήσασθαι αὐτὸν οὐδέ- ποτε δύνανται· ἀρνοῦνται δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μὴ ὄντες ἐν αὐτῷ.]» Ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Ἡρακλέων.

On martyrdom the Lord has spoken explicitly, and what is written in different places we bring together. But I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess in Me before men, the Son of man also shall confess before the angels of God; but whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I deny before the angels. Luke 12:8 Whosoever shall be ashamed of Me or of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him shall the Son of man also be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with His angels. Whosoever therefore shall confess in Me before men, him will I also confess before my Father in heaven. Matthew 10:32 And when they bring you before synagogues, and rulers, and powers, think not beforehand how you shall make your defence, or what you shall say. For the Holy Spirit shall teach you in the same hour what you must say. Luke 12:11-12 In explanation of this passage, Heracleon, the most distinguished of the school of Valentinians, says expressly, that there is a confession by faith and conduct, and one with the voice. The confession that is made with the voice, and before the authorities, is what the most reckon the only confession. Not soundly: and hypocrites also can confess with this confession. But neither will this utterance be found to be spoken universally; for all the saved have confessed with the confession made by the voice, and departed. Of whom are Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi, and many others. And confession by the lip is not universal, but partial. But that which He specifies now is universal, that which is by deeds and actions corresponding to faith in Him. This confession is followed by that which is partial, that before the authorities, if necessary, and reason dictate. For he will confess rightly with his voice who has first confessed by his disposition. And he has well used, with regard to those who confess, the expression 'in Me,' and applied to those who deny the expression 'Me.' For those, though they confess Him with the voice, yet deny Him, not confessing Him in their conduct. But those alone confess 'in Him,' who live in the confession and conduct according to Him, in which He also confesses, who is contained in them and held by them. Wherefore 'He never can deny Himself.' And those deny Him who are not in Him. For He said not, 'Whosoever shall deny' in Me, but 'Me.' For no one who is in Him will ever deny Him. And the expression 'before men?' applies both to the saved and the heathen similarly by conduct before the one, and by voice before the other. Wherefore they never can deny Him. But those deny Him who are not in Him. So far Heracleon.

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Clement of Alexandria, Eclogae Propheticae 25:

Ὁ Ἰωάννης φησίν, ὅτι «ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς ὕδατι βαπτίζω, ἔρχεται δέ μου [ὁ] ὀπίσω ὁ βαπτίζων ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι καὶ πυρί.» πυρὶ δὲ οὐδένα ἐβάπτισεν· «ἔνιοι δέ», ὥς φησιν Ἡρακλέων, «πυρὶ τὰ ὦτα τῶν σφραγιζομένων κατεσημήναντο», οὕτως ἀκούσαντες τὸ ἀποστολικόν.

John says, “I baptize you with water, but there comes after me one who baptizes with spirit and fire” [Matthew 3.11 = Luke 3.16]. He baptized no one with fire. "But some," as Heracleon says, "have marked with fire the ears of those who are sealed," and have thus understood the apostolic word.

The Greek is the TLG text; it seems to me that the exact location of the quotation marks may possibly be questioned or rethought.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

And when you compare third century writers there isn't this textual ambiguity
“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: Glimpses of the Alexandrian 'Super' Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

I don't mean to bring up my own obsessions but what I meant earlier by the 'you can take it two ways' is the following. If you remember the example where Irenaeus gives the cento poem he wrote from Homer and says 'this is what the heretics do' but oddly ends up demonstrating that he was just as capable as shifting sentences from Homer into a new meaning. In a sense, the 'gospel out of four' is sort of like right. You have one guy - let's call him Ammonius and for arguments sake let's say his text called 'the gospel' really was a gospel - i.e. a narrative gospel. Eventually Eusebius creates this canon or table which explains how each piece 'fits' into four shorter gospels. Ok. We have another guy let's call him Irenaeus and he says there are four shorter gospels which someone else harmonized into a long text. Irenaeus (on a seeming separate note) accuses the heretics of acting like cento poets moving passages around to change the sense of the gospel. What applied to moving sentences around in a cento poem from two books the Iliad and the Odyssey necessarily also apply to passages from the single long gospel (if that actually happened). I mean the whole endeavor whether from four gospels to one or one to four gospels is engaging in cento poet practices. When the Marcionites are originally accused of 'cutting things' out of 'the gospel' it is necessarily a single long gospel. But Origen accuses them of refusing to accept four gospel 'sources' behind their composition. This makes them heretics.

Why would someone need to break apart a super gospel into four little gospels? Well the question is obvious was it just one super gospel or two. My guess is that the process resembles what took place with the Mishnah. The halakhah here isn't from one school. But at least two and possibly many - even four. So what did R Judah haNasi do? He took let's say for arguments sake the interpretations of four schools and instead of having four separate interpretations for each ordinance he broke the four single interpretations into one 'mishnah.' What happened in Christianity (if it happened the way I suggested) happened in a similar way only with respect to the holy text. The four gospels probably represent a cento 'harmonization' of four original sources (or at least more than two) back into four shorter texts which are claimed to the source texts of the four schools along with an accompanying argument that those four original schools were heretics and should be outlawed.
“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