1 Clement & the Gospel of Matthew?

[Ben C. Smith]

Dating something/anything from the Long Recension that early... wow.

i knew it was coming. guess that makes me a heretic!

the reason is, it fits a puzzle piece in for me. let's say this Mary is an elder, and according to Ignatius's reply she was in Rome in Linus's time
Let's further say she has something to do with the Johannine community, as the same set of letters states directly is the case
Then we might be seeing where the Gospel of John came from, in real time. those young pastors returned with something in writing and maybe a view they are better placed to lead the church than the ones currently in situ (1/2/3 John ensues)
Because i think John is late but written by people that knew things by association with the people/events. So it's both early and late at the same time in a sense.

This is similar to my own view of John. It is late ⁠— very late ⁠— but it contains bits and snatches that are early. It preserves, for example, the earlier dating of Jesus' passion to before Passover, a dating still visible behind Mark's account but wallpapered over with the synoptic chronology.

I am also pretty sure that the Johannine epistles predate the Johannine gospel.

And the long suspected veiled identity of the beloved disciple - Mary

And the gospel made her male because...? Social pressure/expectation?

[davidmartin]

And the gospel made her male because...? Social pressure/expectation?

Because of everything. It would be saying everyone should turn round and all listen to her and accept her ruling on all matters, if she were alive at the end of the apostolic age.

[neilgodfrey]

And the long suspected veiled identity of the beloved disciple - Mary

And the gospel made her male because...? Social pressure/expectation?

A flippant response from the Gospel of Thomas:

Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."

(Not a totally off the planet response given the published theses that see the gospels of John and Thomas in dialogue! )

[davidmartin]

Y'know i agree with that Neil. It's funny how Peter always gets nunchucked by Jesus over Mary you'd think he'd learn to stop it by now
Recently i thought about the claim the Naassenes had some connection to it. On reading the Naassene writings one is left with a strong sense of male supremacy in their thought. It kind of fits they might have something to do with that one. But i'm not saying they wrote it or anything like that, just maybe tinkered a bit with their copy.
PS I'm of the view that Mary was not too acceptable among certain Gnostics either like the Sethians

[davidmartin]

I am also pretty sure that the Johannine epistles predate the Johannine gospel

ah i wonder. well, 2 John refers to a lady, who may be entertaining the 'wrong sort' of Christians. This ties in again with a Mary/Johannine community on the fringes, but gospel-ready. 1/3 John is a different church I think some more local branch in association or something like that. I'm kind of assuming a gospel has to emerge and become popular before this schism but it's not essential it could have gradually gained acceptance later

The 'John' here sounds like the presbyter John, when does he date to? 80's / 90's something like that.

That would mean the Gospel would have had to hit the press around the same time even if later reworked a bit or my theory sinks fast, although maybe a bit later is still possible to imagine even after the events in the epistles. 100-110AD is my limit i can't imagine it going beyond. But doubt remained about John's gospel among some.. but Mary/John snuck it in there and it's many people's favourite, more personal gospel from someone that, maybe actually was on the scene back in the day

I actually recon Luke to be the latest gospel. Are there any signs Luke counters John on anything but not Matthew or Mark?
The only thing I can think of is in John Jesus accepts his impending capture boldly saying it is why he has come, but in Luke you have the tears to the Father they even fall as drops of blood (a suspected later addition i remember reading that bit). But this is in Mark and Matthew as well...

[Ben C. Smith]

I am also pretty sure that the Johannine epistles predate the Johannine gospel

ah i wonder.

I do too. But I have written up some stuff on this topic.

The Johannine epistles and the Johannine gospel: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4092, in which I make an argument that the epistles predate the gospel.

Different authorial perspectives in 1 John: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3224, which is sort of a setup for things.

well, 2 John refers to a lady, who may be entertaining the 'wrong sort' of Christians.

More thoughts on the Johannine epistles: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3194, in which I opine that the "lady" is the church itself.

A follow-up to those thoughts on the Johannine epistles: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3194&p=70585#p80076, in which I mention J. Rendel Harris' suggestion that "the lady" was the author's sweetheart. I still side with thinking of her as a church, but hey, I could be wrong. I half hope I am in this case.

Irenaeus, the Muratorian canon, and the epistles of John: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1847, in which I suggest that 1 and 2 John may once have been bundled together.

The 'John' here sounds like the presbyter John, when does he date to? 80's / 90's something like that.

Papias and the disciples of the Lord: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3226, in which I (at least try to) revive the hypothesis that there is an interpolation into Eusebius, without which John the Elder is no longer a "disciple of the Lord," in which case his dating range opens right up.

A follow-up to Papias and the disciples of the Lord: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3226#p72069, in which I argue that John the Elder was still alive while Papias was composing his opus.

That would mean the Gospel would have had to hit the press around the same time even if later reworked a bit or my theory sinks fast, although maybe a bit later is still possible to imagine even after the events in the epistles.

The drawbacks of overlooking oral tradition as an option: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4765, in which I (at least potentially) take Papias seriously when he says that he is asking passersthrough for information. I am not much of an "oral tradition" guy, meaning that I think neither (A) that oral tradition in the early church would have been very reliable nor (B) that oral tradition can account for a lot of the intertextual issues (it cannot solve the synoptic problem, for example, at least not on its own). But I absolutely do think that stories and sayings were spread around orally (much as they still do today in churches of certain varieties), and that some of that oral transmission of data (however garbled) must inevitably be accounted for in our reconstructions of early Christianity. In the case at hand, I think it helps us to get the order of several tradents right, which includes my agreement with Dennis MacDonald that Papias preceded the gospel of John. What looks like Papias reacting to John is actually Papias reacting to the Asiatic tradition which privileged Philip and Thomas and Andrew in ways that the synoptic gospels did not; and then John reacted at least in part to Papias and other Asiatic tradents (such as John and Aristion). YMMV.

Differences in order between John and the synoptics: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3227, which were noticed by the church fathers of century II.

I actually recon Luke to be the latest gospel. Are there any signs Luke counters John on anything but not Matthew or Mark?

I think that Luke-Acts is very late, as well, and that at least parts of it are responding to the Johannine tradition.

Beginning with the baptism of John: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3821, in which I argue that Acts seems to presume the Johannine chronology.

John versus Paul in nine movements: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3221, which includes some of the back and forth between Luke-Acts and John. There are elements in this post that I now disagree with, but so be it.

The so called Johannine thunderbolt: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3715, in which I critique Goodacre's argument that the passage is Matthean and that it inspired John to get "Johannine."

The only thing I can think of is in John Jesus accepts his impending capture boldly saying it is why he has come, but in Luke you have the tears to the Father they even fall as drops of blood (a suspected later addition i remember reading that bit).

Yes, this is probably a later addition to Luke.

Majuscule 0171: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2124, which is Egypt's earliest manuscript witness to the pericope.

[davidmartin]

Papias preceded the gospel of John

this doesn't necessarily contradict the dating of John to the 90's, if Papias in his youthful heyday was around that sort of time but he carried on with the traditions he received at that time. I can quite believe he didn't use John in his corner of the church but some other corner did in a transition period
its hard for me to see any gospel dating even has late as 150 with Irenaeus writing only a couple of decades later and acting as if all four had been around forever. He really seems to limit the dating?

I know why some like to date John late... because of the developed high Christology. But if the Odes of Solomon is 1st century that was already old in the 90's AD, and why not? Paul's Christology is high as well.
Maybe John could be seen as an orthodox version of a previous mildly docetic high Christology, sure I guess
Even a docetic version of Christianity presupposes a founding teacher they might want to elevate

Its possible to imagine much of the proto-Orthodox didn't have a high Christology originally but got it from Paul and the more mystical 'docetic' cousins who they would latter oppose. Both these traditions can go back to 1st century and co-exist there

I guess what I mean is why should John be late if Paul is early?

[Ben C. Smith]

Papias preceded the gospel of John

its hard for me to see any gospel dating even has late as 150 with Irenaeus writing only a couple of decades later and acting as if all four had been around forever. He really seems to limit the dating?

I would not date any of the relevant gospels as late as Irenaeus, though I would say that their text was often still in flux.

I know why some like to date John late... because of the developed high Christology. But if the Odes of Solomon is 1st century that was already old in the 90's AD, and why not? Paul's Christology is high as well.

Christology has little or nothing to do with it for me, at least when it comes to the date of John (which is a thorny affair with few hard indicators).

Why do you date John the way you do? What does it for you?

[davidmartin]

Why do you date John the way you do? What does it for you?

well, this is going to be unorthodox..
the gnostics talked about a female figure that generated the lower aeons. I see this as referring to an actual person and they are talking about mythologised history. there's some pointers for that. so the lower aeons includes orthodox Christianity
this is the Mary person Ignatius is talking to, the lady of 2 John, the Johannine community which is linked to Mary, the Mary in the gospels
John has to emerge while she is still alive or not too long after apostolic times
I don't think she is a gnostic per se, more a mystic, an Odes people person at odds with both gnostics and orthodoxy
that where John gets all that personal stuff from
its crazy I know but I've heard crazier stuff, like Jesus was a mushroom!

[Ben C. Smith]

Why do you date John the way you do? What does it for you?

well, this is going to be unorthodox..
the gnostics talked about a female figure that generated the lower aeons. I see this as referring to an actual person and they are talking about mythologised history. there's some pointers for that. so the lower aeons includes orthodox Christianity
this is the Mary person Ignatius is talking to, the lady of 2 John, the Johannine community which is linked to Mary, the Mary in the gospels
John has to emerge while she is still alive or not too long after apostolic times
I don't think she is a gnostic per se, more a mystic, an Odes people person at odds with both gnostics and orthodoxy
that where John gets all that personal stuff from
its crazy I know but I've heard crazier stuff, like Jesus was a mushroom!

You and I disagree, then, very much about (A) this Mary, (B) the identity of the beloved disciple, and (C) the implications of both of these items for the date of the gospel of John.

I will observe for now that the final redaction of the gospel of John itself seems to have been written by somebody other than the beloved disciple, since several key texts speak of this disciple in the third person and imply that he is already dead (I am using the masculine pronouns for him because the gospel itself does, too). Would you agree with that much?