Irenaeus Says that the Valentinians Used the Johannine Prologue Rather than the Gospel of John as Such

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Irenaeus Says that the Valentinians Used the Johannine Prologue Rather than the Gospel of John as Such

Post by MrMacSon »

Blood wrote: Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:20 am
Irenaeus's explanation for having four gospels is classic non-explanation. He doesn't know why there are four, so he simply makes things up and hopes the reader is gullible enough to believe it on his "authority."

But the preceding paragraph does contain potentially significant information -- if the groups whom he says "use" the four gospels are actually the ones who wrote those gospels.
  • Docetists wrote Mark
  • Ebionites wrote Matthew
  • Marcionites wrote Luke
  • Valentinians wrote John
If this was correct, then the Docetists would be among the earliest Christians, with the Ebionites perhaps a splinter group from them.
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:53 am Separationists, more than Docetists, wrote Mark ...
Secret Alias wrote: Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:50 am ... We have to get away from thinking that Irenaeus is actually describing separate sects rather than naming things to separate them...
I think it's likely that many of the earliest Christians were Docetists, and that Ebionites and Valentinians are likely to have been associated with and have influenced early Christianity, so I think Stephan and Giuseppe make good points.

But there is also likely to have been a time dimensions ie. things are likely to have been changing from one generation to another in all of these nebulous, theological groups and communities: Docetic groups, the Ebionites, the Essenes, messianic Jewish groups, proto-Christian groups, etc,

Mark might have been in a group that arose out of a Docetic group; Matthew might have been Ebionite-2.0; likewise Luke was likely to have been in a group that was peripheral to or a satellite of Marcion's group or another Marcionite group.

(though it's noteworthy that Jorg Ruepke says many if not most of these texts were written to meet a market of reader demand without communities behind them: a market started by demand for the works of the likes of Josephus (see this post), Plutarch, Suetonius, the Shepherd of Hermas, and others (probably including Philo, the corpus Hermeticum, Aelius Aristides, etc).
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Irenaeus Says that the Valentinians Used the Johannine Prologue Rather than the Gospel of John as Such

Post by Stuart »

Both premises of the OP is wrong, first that the prologue might be separate and second that the Valentinians only used the prologue.

Origen's commentary on John goes into detail about how the prominent Valentinian Heracleon interpreted the Samaritan Woman story in John, and even notes that in verse 4:18 Heracleon reads six (ἕξ) husbands instead of five (πέντε), thus interpreting it as all material evil. A Valentinian fragment from Clement Stromata references John 8:44. The Gospel of Phillip, which many think is Valentinian, references John 8:32-36. Hippolutus (Refutation of all Heresies 6.30.1) says the Valentinians used John 10:8 to support their claim all the prophets, therefore, and the Law spoke by means of the Demiurge, "fools who knew nothing."

Then I got some coffee :goodmorning: my brain kicked in, remembering Heracleon wrote a entire commentary on the Gospel of John, which is where Origen got his quotes. It has in fact been suggested Origen wrote his commentary on John in reaction to the Valentinian commentary. See http://gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm for full list of

So the second premise is refuted decisively; the Valentinians made extensive use of John beyond the prologue. Stephen Huller's interpretation of Irenaeus on this point is (as with many), to say the least, faulty.

On to problems with the second premise of the OP that the prologue was a separate document originally than the Gospel of John. There is a wide range of opinion on the composition of the 4th Gospel, but there is consistency with the rest of the Gospel in both theology and theme. I am in the five layer composition camp, but I see the first two layers as fused in the first published version. DCH points to two parallels from the 2nd "narrator" layer that is on top of the episodic layer. But he only hints at the consistency of the prologue to the rest of the Gospel. I will just mention a couple more.

Before that I'll digress into the uniqueness of the logos identified as Christ himself in verse 1:1 (and 1:14), which sets the prologue apart (I had often wondered, on the idea the prologue was separate, if λόγος had replaced φῶς or φωτός, as Jesus refers to his word as a doctrine, but himself as the light in the rest of the Gospel). But even this is actually a story about the origins of Jesus, and verse 1:14 makes that clear where the pre-existing Christ (becomes flesh in "grace and truth." The prologue, I argue, is meant to counter Matthew's protoevangelium birth account (Matthew 1:18ff). Aligning the arrival of Christ with Colossians 1:15-17, and Phillipeans 2:6-7 in Marcionite form (reading ἀνθρώπου for ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος with p46 syrJ cop Origen), and the reputed position of Apelles (Hippolytus Refutation 7.27). Note to Joe Wallack, this is one of many points where John is responding to elements in Matthew not found in Mark (no such the other way); and this continues elsewhere refuting his protoevangelium, specifically Matthew 2:1-6 by John 1:41-42 ("Jews" = "Judaizer Christians" ask how John's Jesus can be Christ since he is supposed to be from Bethlehem, not Galilee, per Luke 4:31 in the Marcionite account) - another element not found in Mark.

The consistency of the theology with the rest of the Gospel can be seen in verse 1:17 with the formula juxtaposing Moses with the Law (i.e., the books of Moses) against Christ who brings "grace and truth." This happens in 5:45, 47 (I'm not certain about 4:36 being in the original version of John), 6:32-33, 7:19, 22-23, 9:28-29 also perhaps 3:14 (as an allegory) in the discussion with Nicodemus. This is also seem in Jesus' denigration of the Law and thus Moses as not his in verses 8:17, 9:34, 15:25. Those who support Jesus (crowd = assembly) are said to not know the Law in 7:49, and when the assembly (crwod, this time "Jewish Christains") challenges Jesus as contradicting what is predicted in the Law in verse 12:34. There is no theological split with the rest of the Gospel. In fact it fits the narrator's themes.

The same can be said of the light and life in the prologue (verses 1:4-5) reflected in Gospel verses such as 3:19, 8:12, 9:6, 11:9-10, 12:35-36. The material about John the Baptist as a witness contained is a summary before the fact has already been covered (the often before the fact narrator commentary of events is one of the reason I think the episodic material was first, then a 2nd author placed a narrative layer, including the prologue). Note on John the Baptist, in the prologue John is said to be sent by the God of Jesus (not the Law giver; separation of Law giver from Demiurge is a major theological break between John and the Marcionite type theology), consistent with the presentation in John, and in opposition to the Elijah come again theology in Matthew.

The case is not strong for the prologue existing independent of the Gospel. It is far too close thematically and specifically to the theology found in the Gospel. So the case is not made for the first part of the OP.

**********************************
note to DCHindley on his listing of Greek and English of the prologue verse 1:11. The English translation is rather loose, with subjective renderings:

εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν -> "came among his own"
// where did "house" come from? οἰκία simply isn't there in the Greek, nor is τόπον αὐτῆς
καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον --> "and those who were his own did not receive him"
// own "people" is suggestive; λαόν ἴδιοι is not what is written

The readings with those two "implied" words seem to me to be theologically driven by the translator, perhaps even unaware. Taken together I get the view he is reading in Jesus as Jewish and coming into his home, but being rejected by the Jews. But there are other readings possible. One, which Giuseppe would jump on, is that Christ came among the his own celestial born beings (demons, spirits, etc) but they didn't receive him, in fact opposed him -- before this he dwelt with his father. I am not advocating this reading, just pointing out how the translator by inserting two words not in the Greek. You should have bracketed [house] and [people] as implied words like you did [Son] in verse 1:14 for example from μονογενοῦς .

(IMO the articles like "the" you didn't need to bracket, as they are required by English, and you can capitalize if you want to emphasis uniqueness)
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Irenaeus Says that the Valentinians Used the Johannine Prologue Rather than the Gospel of John as Such

Post by Secret Alias »

Both premises of the OP is wrong, first that the prologue might be separate and second that the Valentinians only used the prologue
I understand that if I said the sky was blue on a sunny day you'd still argue it was red but THAT IS what Irenaeus says in the citation. How can the OP be wrong unless I had a time machine or I was a master forger with a time machine.
“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
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Irenaeus Says that the Valentinians Used the Johannine Prologue Rather than the Gospel of John as Such

Post by Charles Wilson »

Teeple, Literary Origins..., p, 140:

"What is the origin of the Logos Christology in Christianity ? Jesus is not the preexistent Logos elsewhere in the New Testament, not even in the Gospel of John. He is the "Logos of God" in Revelation 19:13, but he is not preexistent. In the earliest Christian gnostic books Jesus is not the Logos. Basilides and the Barbelo—Gnostics included the Logos in their emanations from the Father, but the Logos is not Jesus or the Christ. Ignatius states that "God was manifest as man" (Eph. 19) and once refers to Jesus in gnostic terms as the Logos that has come forth from Sige [Long "e"] "Silence" (Magn. 8), yet in anti—docetic fashion he stresses Jesus birth from Mary and descent from David. Are we witnessing in the Prologue the birth of the identification of Jesus with the preexistent Logos ? If so, the notion originated not from systematic theological thought, but from the chance incorporation of a Hellenistic Jewish poem into a gnostic Christian hymn! "

This is Teeple's conclusion after a long analysis.

CW
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Irenaeus Says that the Valentinians Used the Johannine Prologue Rather than the Gospel of John as Such

Post by MrMacSon »

Charles Wilson wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:57 pm
Teeple, Literary Origins..., p, 140:

" .... Ignatius states that "God was manifest as man" (Eph. 19) and once refers to Jesus in gnostic terms as the Logos that has come forth from Sige [Long "e"] "Silence" (Magn. 8), yet in anti—docetic fashion he stresses Jesus birth from Mary and descent from David."
.
The first use of dokein (= to seem), the origin of Docetic, in a christological controversy may be Ignatius’s letters to the Trallians and Smyrnans (said to be c. 110-115 CE, but some suspect these are later) where Ignatius mocks those who claim that Christ only seemed to suffer (to dokein auton peponthenai; Tral. 10:1; Smy 2; cf.4:2).

eta -

The word Δοκηταί (Dokētaí, “Illusionists”; noun) is said to have been first used by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (197–203) in a letter* referring to early groups who denied Jesus’s humanity (after he discovered the doctrine in the Gospel of Peter).
  • a letter titled ‘Concerning the So-Called Gospel of St Peter’, alluded to in Eusebius’s Church History VI 12.3–6.
In Clement of Alexandria’s time (early 3rd century) there were disputes over whether Christ assumed the “psychic” flesh of mankind as heirs to Adam, or the “spiritual” flesh of the resurrection. Clement referred to a group whose name derives from their doctrine* (Stromateis VII.xvii). Clement also opined that the founder of docetism was Julius Cassian, but this assessment may have been grounded in Cassian’s belief that birth was an evil (Strom. III.xvii).
and, Basilides evidently taught that ”the Nous” took human form as Jesus in order to make the unborn, nameless Father known.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Irenaeus Says that the Valentinians Used the Johannine Prologue Rather than the Gospel of John as Such

Post by Stuart »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:51 pm
Both premises of the OP is wrong, first that the prologue might be separate and second that the Valentinians only used the prologue
I understand that if I said the sky was blue on a sunny day you'd still argue it was red but THAT IS what Irenaeus says in the citation. How can the OP be wrong unless I had a time machine or I was a master forger with a time machine.
This answer is capitulation. Trying to say Irenaeus says something he doesn't, then denying you said that. Let's look at the OP and see who says the prologue only ...
Secret Alias wrote: Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:38 am Irenaeus writes:
Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.
The prologue does not in itself mean that the Valentinians used the Gospel of John. // premise #1 stated by Stephen Huller

The prologue could well have been part of another gospel or a stand alone 'summary' of the gospel. // premise #2 stated by Stephen Huller
Neither of the premises were stated by Irenaeus. Both were stated by you.

In fact the full quote from book III of the collection entitled in modern days Irenaeus, containing various pseudonymous tracts from various authors, and it goes as follows:
3.11.7

Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law,-[principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavors to establish his own peculiar doctrine.

For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord.

But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified.

Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book.
I left the last sentence off (which you include) so that the structure is clear. The author of this tract assigns each heresy and entire Gospel, not simply a prologue. Only the Marcionites does he accuse of only using part. This is very different than what you have attempted to portray. At this point it is clear you are at the least mistaken, at the worst deliberately deceitful.

Worse if you go back and look at the evidence, you will see that book one does not systemically go through the Gospel of John in any refutation of the Valentinians. But the first book does contain a weak refutation of their cosmic system, or more accurately a description of it and it's origins in relationship to the prologue of John, or perhaps even more accurately their attempt to harmonize the prologue of John to support their views (AH 1.8.5). But he mentions the prologue as from the Gospel of John and does know it or it's reference by the Valentinians as separate from the Gospel. This part is your invention.

In fact the author makes reference to the Valentinians use of John 17:16 in AH 1.6.4. Further in AH 2.12.9 the Valentinians exegesis of the blind man story from John 9:1ff is detailed. IN AH 2.22.3 he does make good of refuting Valentinians with more of the Gospel of John, citing verses 2:23, 4:50, 5.1ff, 6.1ff, 6.54-7.1. Then 8.56-57 in AH 22.3.6.

It only takes a small effort to fact check to see that your source references far more of the Gospel of John than the prologue you wrongly state was his only reference. Let's chalk it up to missing your morning Joe. :goodmorning:
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Irenaeus Says that the Valentinians Used the Johannine Prologue Rather than the Gospel of John as Such

Post by Ulan »

Well, when I read the thread the first time, I assumed the claim in the thread title must have been made somewhere else, because I didn't see it in the quote. I didn't really dig further though.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Irenaeus Says that the Valentinians Used the Johannine Prologue Rather than the Gospel of John as Such

Post by Secret Alias »

Responding to Stuarts usual enmity (which doesn't require a lot of my time or thought)
Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book.
is there any other part of John that is used to 'illustrate their conjunctions'? Is there any other part of John that Irenaeus uses to defend orthodoxy other than the prologue? Irenaeus is not a monolithic source. In the same manner as we see with Against Marcion and other early works it is a 'headcheese' of sources mixed into one tome. How else can you explain that Irenaeus cites Mark 1:1 as both 'according to Isaiah the prophet' AND 'according to the prophets' in the same five books? So the fact that he says one thing in one place and another thing in another place does not prove that the same hand wrote both things. The same thing is evident in Against the Jews where Tertullian develops arguments from both the Greek and Hebrew recensions of Daniel i.e. that the unction will be cut off and the messiah will be cut off. Two different layers to the text and a completely made up translation of Daniel which bridges the gap between the Greek and the Hebrew i.e. where Daniel is made to begin saying 'the unction' will be cut off and later in the same 'translation' the messiah or leader will be cut off. These aren't monolithic texts and source criticism has to be used to treat the possibility that we have two different sources in Against Heresies, two different authors writing at different times with different points of view. I am not the first to suggest this.
“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: Irenaeus Says that the Valentinians Used the Johannine Prologue Rather than the Gospel of John as Such

Post by Secret Alias »

Heracleon wrote a entire commentary on the Gospel of John. Yes and he is said to have written a commentary on Luke too. But so what?
“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
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Irenaeus Says that the Valentinians Used the Johannine Prologue Rather than the Gospel of John as Such

Post by Ulan »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:39 am Responding to Stuarts usual enmity (which doesn't require a lot of my time or thought)
Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book.
is there any other part of John that is used to 'illustrate their conjunctions'? Is there any other part of John that Irenaeus uses to defend orthodoxy other than the prologue?
The clause doesn't imply exclusive use by the Valentinians. Even if Irenaeus only uses the prologue in his discussion, you cannot claim the same for the Valentinians. Those are two different things. The choice may have been made on the side of Irenaeus. You can't really tell for the Valentinians. Maybe, maybe not.

Of course, there's always the issue what state of gJohn they used, but that's another question again.

I can understand that Stuart's attitude provokes resistance, but I cannot deny that he may have a point somewhere in there.
Post Reply