Bultmann: the φῶς was originally John the Baptist

[Giuseppe]

I quote from Robert Bultmann, The Gospel of John, p. 16-17, original emphasis:

The motive for the insertion of vv. 6-8:15 is clear from their polemical character. For their purpose is not only the positive one of proclaiming the Baptist as witness for Jesus; it is also polemical: to dispute the claim that the Baptist has the authority of Revealer. This authority must therefore have been attributed by the Baptist sect to their master; [1] they saw in him the φῶς, and thus also the pre-existent Logos become flesh. This suggests that the source-text was a hymn of the Baptist-Community. By referring it to Jesus, the Evangelist would then have been acting in a way similar to that of the Church Fathers, who saw a prophecy of Jesus Christ in the 4th Eclogue of Vergil. There is no difficulty in this conjecture, if one may suppose that the Evangelist once belonged to the Baptist community, until his eyes were opened to perceive that not John, but Jesus was the Revealer sent by God. For without doubt the narrative 1:35-21 bears witness to the fact that one section of the disciples of the Baptist went over to the Christian community; and must we not therefore assume that Baptist tradition was taken over by the Christians ? [2]

The hypothesis, advocated primarily by Burney, that the Johannine Gospel is a work translated in its entirety from Aramaic into Greek, [3] can only be maintaned, in my opinion, in respect of the source underlying the Prologue and the Jesus-discourses in the Gospel.

NOTES

[1] The rivalry between the disciples of Jesus and those of the Baptist is already reflected in the synoptic tradition (cp. Gesch. d. Synopt. Tr. 2nd ed. 22, 177-179.261f.=Hist. of the Syn. Trad. 19, 164-166, 246), and is attested by Acts 18.25f; 19.1-7. Cp. M. Dibelius, Die urchristliche Uberlieferung von Joh. d. Taufer 1911; M. Goguel, Jean-Baptiste 1928; P. Guemin, Y-a-t-il un conflit entre Jean-Baptiste et Jésus ? 1933. Rud. Meyer, Der Prophet aus Galilaa 1940, 96; D. Culmann, Coniect. Neotest. XI (1947) 26-32. - The traces of the disciples of John the Baptist held their master to be the Messiah, and - at what point? - to be the pre-existent and incarnate Logos, have almost disappeared. They are found (Lk 3.15?) in the Ps. Clem. Rec. I. 54. 60, in Ephraem ev. exp. ed. Moes. 288, to which Baldensperger (op. cit. 138) has already called attention, and in the medieval heresy-documents (Ign. Dollinger, Beitr. zur Sektengesch. des Mittelalters I 1890, 154, 169, 190; in addition the relevant Documents: II 34, 65, 90. 155. 267. 283. 294. 325. 375). The Johannine parts of the Mandaean writings are also a witness to this, even if they belong to a later stage. - Cp. R. Reitzenstein, Das mand. Buch des Herrn der Grosse (S. A. Heidelbers 1919, 62, 2;) Das iran. Erlosungsmyst. 1921, 125, ZNTW 26 (1927) 48, 64; Die Vorgeschichte der christl. Taufe 1929, 60; M. Goguel, J.-B. 105ff. - It is not surprising, int he sphere of syncretistic Baptist belief, that the Baptist sect assimilated Gnostic speculations about the heavenly redeemer become man. Schlatter too (Der Evglist Joh. 13) finds it conceivable that Gnostic piety was attracted to the Baptist.- Cp. Br., additional note on 1.7.

[2] This was moreover without doubt the case; the history of the Baptist's birth in Lk 1 (and also the history of his death, Mk 6.14-29), certainly stems from Baptist tradition. Cp. Geschicht. der Synopt. Tr. 2nd ed. 320f., 328f.=HIst. of the Syn. Trad., 294f, 301f; Goguel, J.-B. 69-75. For further discussion sen on 1.6-8 (48f.), on 35-51 (97f), on 3.29 (173f.).

[3] C.F.Burney: The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, 1922; cp. R. Bultmann: Die christl. Welt 41 (1927), 570f,, and the full investigation by M. Goguel, Rev. H. Ph. rel. 3 (1923), 373-382. The question whether the Joh. Gospel has been tr. from Aramaic is answered in the negative by J. Bonsirven, Biblica 30 (1949(, 405-432, and by W. F. Albright, The Archeology of Palestine, 1949 (238-248) and in The Background of the N.T. and its Eschatology (Festschr. for C.H. Dodd) 1956, 154f. On the other side, Black regards it as probable that an Aramaic source has been used in the Jesus-discourses (as also in the words of the Baptist in ch. 3).

[Charles Wilson]

Howard M Teeple, Literary Origins of the Gospel of John, p. 129:

"Bultmann (1923, 1941), as we have seen, conjectures that the Prologue and the rest of the Revelation-Speeches source was originally written in Aramaic. This is a serious error, for it overlooks the possibility that the Prologue may be from a different source than the Revelation Speeches and written in a different style. He fails to recognize the significance of the fact that the Semitic-style poetry is in only a portion of the original Prologue. There is no valid evidence supporting Bultmann's opinion that the Prologue and the Revelation Speeches emanated from the followers of John the Baptist. His basis for the conjecture, in addition to the Mandaean literature, is the evangelist's anti-Baptist polemic in verses 6 - 8, 15, which suggests to Bultmann that the source was a hymn of the Baptist community which regarded John as the Revealer, and the evangelist, a Christian convert from the Baptist community, made the insertions to counteract the beliefs of that community. Bultmann overlooks the existence of anti-Baptist polemic in early Christian literature that definitely was not written by former members of John's sect. Bultmann's reconstruction of the hynm source is: verses 1, (2 ?), 3 - 5, 9a-b, (10a ?), 10b-c, 11-12b, 14, 16; he excises "man" in 9 and "authority" in 12 for the sake of rhythm. He strongly suspects that verses 2 and 10a were added by the evangelist..."

I'm not being argumentative here, Giuseppe.

Teeple's Analysis of the Prologue is first rate. What is lying in front of everyone is the fact that "Behold the Lamb of God" is as Semitic as it can get. John is setting the stage for the Word Play being completely obliterated in the move to Greek.

Teeple sees a Jewish Poem, a Christian Gnostic Poem and the work on an Editor in the Prologue. To Teeple, it cannot be as Bultman describes. That is, the game is stacked against a "Simple" understanding of the early John since so many fragments were combined at the start.

Best to you,

CW

[Giuseppe]

As proved by Stahl et alia, the hymn addressed to Elizabeth and Zacharia was originally addressed to John the Baptist:

And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;
for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,
77 to give his people the knowledge of salvation
through the forgiveness of their sins,
78 because of the tender mercy of our God,
by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven
79 to shine on those living in darkness
and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the path of peace.”

(Luke 1:76-79)

This is independent evidence of the fact that John the Baptist was adored as the "Light" by his disciples.

[Giuseppe]

It is possible that Paul himself refers to a rival John Christ masquerade "as an angel of light":

And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

(2 Corinthians 2:11-15)

Following Stuart's suggestion that Apollos==Apelles, then the Apelleans were preaching in Corinth that the angelic Christ assumed the form, and only the form, of John the Baptist (the "light"), when he descended on earth.

[Giuseppe]

Other evidence that John was the light, in the words of Jesus Son of Father ("Bar-Abbas"):

“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true.

33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.

36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me.

(John 5:31-36)

I wonder if the original Parable of Lamp referred to John as the lamp.

Just as the Parable of Seed referred to Paul as the thiny seed.

[Giuseppe]

So Roger Parvus:

According to a passage in the “Refutation of All Heresies” by Hippolytus, Apelles taught that there were two principal angels/deities who are evil. Harnack was puzzled by this and thought that Hippolytus must have been mistaken (“Marcion— The Gospel of the Alien God,” p. 171, footnote 78). But now after reading DeConick’s article I am not so sure.

Here is what Hippolytus says:

“But Apelles, a disciple of this heretic [Marcion], was displeased at the statements put forward by his teacher… and so by another theory he supposed that there are four gods. And the first of these he alleges to be the ‘Good Being, ’whom the prophets did not know, and Christ to be his Son. And the second God he affirms to be the Creator of the universe, and him he does not wish to be a God. AND APELLES’ THIRD GOD HE STATES TO BE THE FIERY ONE THAT WAS MANIFESTED; AND THE FOURTH TO BE AN EVIL ONE. AND APELLES CALLS THESE ANGELS. And by adding Christ (to his list of divinities) he will likewise assert him to be a fifth God.”

(10, 16, my caps)

From other patristic references to Apelles it is clear that he taught there was one supreme God who was the Father of Christ. And he taught that a glorious angel of theirs created the world with the best of intentions, but that his work turned out defective. And he taught the existence of the “fiery one” i.e., the angel who deceived the Jews (“Apelles concocted some kind of . . . god of the Law and of Israel, affirming him to be of fire” – Tertullian’s ‘On the Prescription of Heretics,’ 34). But the above text from the Refutations of Hippolytus is the only one that attributes to Apelles a belief in an additional evil angel/deity. It doesn’t say this evil angel was the son of the Fiery One but, in light of DeConick’s article, that possibility will have to be kept in mind going forward.

These words have impressed me:

“Apelles concocted some kind of . . . god of the Law and of Israel, affirming him to be of fire”

Remember about what John is made to say in Matthew 3:11:

He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

"Fire" is absent in Mark.

If "fire" is the signature of the evil demiurge, then Matthew is demiurgizing his Jesus of paper.

At contrary, Apelles's Jesus entered in world "by water", not by fire. So Neil:

I think Apelles’ understanding of the way the Word became flesh (by taking on cosmic elements as he descended to earth through the heavens) and then entered the world “by water” (baptism only) qualifies as one side of the argument DeConick identifies. See DeConick’s article for a fuller explanation of her own viewpoint.

(my bold)

So we have the following connections:

• John/water ----> he is mere precursor of Jesus

• Jesus/fire ------> Jesus is demiurgized by Matthew

• Jesus/water ----> Jesus is anti-demiurgized by Apelles

• YHWH/fire -----> YHWH is demonized by Apelles

[Giuseppe]

The original identification of baptism with illumination is made clear in Hebrews 10:32:

Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you endured in a great conflict full of suffering

Hence there is at least a sense by which John was the "Light" insofar he was the "Baptizer".

Who emerges from water sees the light in the person of John the Baptist.