My recreation of the opening of the First Gospel

[rgprice]

I would disagree, if we are looking at the commonly held beliefs around timings: Paul --> Mark --> Matthew/Luke --> John --> Marcion's *Ev.

In Paul and Mark, Jesus is arguably a Jewish man born normally who is taken by God to heaven like Elijah and Philo's Moses. In Matthew/Luke, Jesus is a man born of a Jewish virgin under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In John, Jesus is the incarnated Logos who is born as a man. In Marcion, Jesus is a spirit not born as a man at all.

In Marcion we see the ideas that the material world is corrupt, created by an ignorant being which thought of itself as God. Thus the need to remove any origin by flesh, which is part of the material world. That is a pagan idea. In Jewish thought, the world created by God was good.

I guess if one regards the timing differently the analysis would vary.

It's not just the idea that Jesus was a spirit from heaven that needs to be considered. It's also that the Creator god was either ignorant or evil. Your theory would need to explain why that would get flipped. AFAICS it is explainable by Christianity starting out as Jewish and then adopting Greek philosophical ideas as it expanded into the Roman empire, with Marcion a pagan product of that expansion. I find it harder to believe that the initial story had Jesus descending to fight an ignorant/evil Creator Jewish god, and then Jews adopting that story to modify it.

No, no. There is nothing (legitimate) in the Pauline letters that say Jesus is, "Jewish man born normally". The opening of Romans and the "born of a woman" passage are obvious later orthodox interpolations. Certainly outside of the opening of Romans noting indicates that Jesus is "Jewish".

There is also nothing in Mark that indicates that Jesus "a Jewish man born normally". His origin in canonical Mark is unknown. John says nothing about Jesus being "born" at all. John says he entered the world and became flesh. The opening of John is entirely compatible with Apelles:

Close on their heels follows Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, ... The Law and the prophets he repudiates. Christ he neither, like Marcion, affirms to have been in a phantasmal shape, nor yet in substance of a true body, as the Gospel teaches; but says, because He descended from the upper regions, that in the course of His descent He wove together for Himself a starry and airy flesh; and, in His resurrection, restored, in the course of His ascent, to the several individual elements whatever had been borrowed in His descent: and thus-the several parts of His body dispersed-He reinstated in heaven His spirit only. This man denies the resurrection of the flesh.
- Against All Heresies; Tertullian

The birth stories of Matthew and Luke are clearly late and reactionary additions to earlier narratives that gave no account of a birth of Jesus. They are specifically anti-docetic inventions. The case that the birth accounts are late anti-docetic inventions is very strong. So much has been done on this in the past 10 years in relation to scholarship about Marcion's scriptures. I don't think *Ev was the first Gospel, but certainly *Ev came before Matthew and canonical Luke.

There is no reasonable way to arrive at the belief that Jesus was a Spirit who descended from heaven from stories that clearly indicated he was a person who was born on earth. The only way to think that this happened is to follow the logic of the church fathers. To claim that the docetists willfully took stories that clearly said Jesus was a person and forced a very unintuitive interpretation on them. Why do this? Why not just reject the story altogether? Why not just invention their own stories? It must have been that at the very least, the earliest Gospel narratives were open to multiple interpretations.

It has to be that at the very least a reasonable reading of the earliest stories could lead to the conclusion that Jesus was a spirit who had come from heaven. The corollary of this is that one could say that it must also then be that it must have been a reasonable interpretation of the earliest stories that Jesus could have been a person as well. And perhaps that's the case. I think the Gospel of John is one that provides such ambiguity. If one starts from the Gospel of John, or at least a presumed proto-John, one could conclude that Jesus at least came from heaven. Of course John as we have says explicitly that he "became flesh". But one can easily see how that could be a later orthodox revision.

What clearly doesn't make sense is if there was originally an established group of people who worshiped some Jesus figure, who believed that he was a real person and told and wrote stories about him clearly indicating that he was a person, that then people would come along and claim that he was a spirit from heaven. It defies all credulity, and even the church fathers have to strain to make their claims, blaming the existence of these beliefs on Satan and evil forces that are trying to intentionally confuse the world to prevent the success of Christ's mission, etc. So even they had no real rational explanation for the "rise" of these heresies, they just blamed it all on the devil.

[rgprice]

I want to get back to defending the idea that the material we have points to the existence of an earlier version of the narrative that is not explicitly retained in any of the canonical Gospels.

Firstly, let's deal with "the word".

The Gospel of John opens with a lot of discussion about "the Word":

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”)

Now, many people may just assume that the writer of this Gospel just came up with this introductory idea out of thin air. It's just their invention. But why would this writer choose to open his Gospel in this way?

Luke 3 gives us a clue.

1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.
5 Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low.
The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth.
6 And all people will see God’s salvation.’”

7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath

Now, its very interesting that both Luke 3 (the opening of proto-Luke) and the Gospel of John tell us, in very different ways, that "the word of God came to John".

In the case of John, "the Word" is Philo's Word of Creation. The Word is Christ himself. In the case of Luke, "the word" is the voice of God speaking to John. But we can see how a statement like the one in Luke could have been interpreted in the way that the write of John interprets it.

So it is easy to envision how someone could be inspired to write the opening of John by reading a story that started something like:

The word of God came to John in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet ... And Jesus appeared before John.

Now, its easy to see how from such an opening one could embellish this opening and transform it into the opening of the Gospel of John.

So does that make sense? Now we have a better model for understanding why the writer of the Gospel of John would have written what they did.

BUT, we can't just go on that. Why might we think that there would have really been an earlier narrative that opened like what we see above?

Well, we know that in the Gospel of Mark, the writer relies heavily on themes from the books of Kings. The whole first half of the Markan narrative draws heavily on the story of Elijah and Elisha. It is very clear in the very beginning of the story that John the Baptist symbolizes Elijah. This is beyond dispute, since the opening tells us:

6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 He proclaimed, 'The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals.

Ans isa clear allusion to:

2 Kings 1:8 They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist." The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite."

And beyond this, there are many other refences in the Gospel to the story of Elijah and Elisha. And in Mark 9 we are effectively told that John is Elijah, and of course the writer of Matthew makes this explicitly clear when he writes:

Matthew17:12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

So JtB is Elijah, we know that.

Now, it "just so happens", that in the Kings narrative there are many passages in which we are told that "the word of the Lord came to Elijah".

Now, given that we know in the Gospel of Mark John represents Elijah. And we know that throughout the first half of Mark the entire narrative parallels the story of Elijah and Elisha in scene after scene, from the very beginning of Mark 1 all the way through the feeding miracles in Mark 8, the statement that "the word of God came to John" is expected.

But we don't find in the Gospel of Mark any place that says, "the word of God came to John". That doesn't exist in Mark. But it does exist in Luke. However, in Luke parallels to the Kings story only exist in so far as they are shared with Mark, and in many cases they have been re-worded in such a way that the parallels to the story of Kings are less clear. So it does not appear that the writer of Luke is themselves trying to draw any parallels between the Jesus narrative and the Elijah/Elisha narrative. Yet here we find in Luke a very distinct and uncharacteristic parallel to the Elijah/Elisha narrative.

Where do such parallels more naturally fit? They more naturally fit in the Gospel of Mark. This suggests that Luke was derived from some narrative that looked more like Mark and in which the passage, "the word of God came to John in the wilderness" was present in the opening.

And we can see how such a narrative, something that looked a lot like Mark, but that also said, "the word of God came to John in the wilderness", would both: #1 be expected based on the parallel themes between the Elijah/Elisha narrative and the Gospel narrative and #2 be a more obvious progenitor of the opening of the Gospel of John.

[rgprice]

So there are several reason to conclude that the opening of canonical Mark does not follow how it was originally written:

#1) Mark 1:1 the "title". The opening verse of Mark appears to be a description of the work that is a late addition by a different person than the original author. Mark 1:1 is the only time in the entire narrative that we find "Jesus Christ" written out. On top of that, much of the narrative revolves around the gradual revelation of who Jesus is. The reader is led to question the identity of Jesus. Who is he really? The identity of Jesu sis something to be revealed and discovered by both the reader and the characters in the narrative.

The entire narrative plot device is immediately undermined in the first verse, and thus this is certainly not something that would have been written by the original writer.

#2) Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

This is the only place in all of the Gospel of Mark that we are told Jesus "came from" a place called Nazareth. In fact it is the only place that the word Ναζαρὲτ is used. Throughout the rest of the work Jesus is sometimes referred to as Jesus the Nazarene and it is quite unclear that this title has anything to do with where he was supposedly from. But nowhere in the rest of the work is it said that Jesus is "from Nazareth". Furthermore, neither the Gospel of Luke nor Matthew say that Jesus came "from Nazareth" in this scene. Matthew has: "Matthew 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. "

This looks like a case where Mark is conformed to Matthew, even though it doesn't Matthew here. Matthew explains that Jesus came from the town of Nazareth in the opening birth narrative. It would seem here that in the opening of Mark where Jesus came from was at the very least unsaid. So that he came from Nazareth was added to align the Gospel with the others. Again, who Jesus is and where he came from was supposed to be a mystery.

#3) The statement "Mark 1:2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:" is unMarkan. As noted in the Hermeneia: "The opening of this verse is the most complete and explicit citation of scripture in the Gospel of Mark. Other passages cite written scripture but name neither the book nor its author."

Furthermore, there are manuscripts that read simply "the prophets" instead of "the prophet Isaiah".

#4) The Parable of the Sower, as I've already explained, indicates that it was John who was tempted by Satan, not Jesus:

14 The sower sows the word. 15 These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them.

John was the one on the path where the word was sown.

#5) That John is taken to heaven instead of jail completes the exchange. John is exchanged for Jesus. Jesus comes from heaven and John goes to heaven. This is also why there are people who think that Jesus is John. Because one was swapped out for the other.

This relates to Luke 16:16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it."

In the original narrative there was a clean swap.

[Peter Kirby]

#2) Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

This is the only place in all of the Gospel of Mark that we are told Jesus "came from" a place called Nazareth. In fact it is the only place that the word Ναζαρὲτ is used. Throughout the rest of the work Jesus is sometimes referred to as Jesus the Nazarene and it is quite unclear that this title has anything to do with where he was supposedly from. But nowhere in the rest of the work is it said that Jesus is "from Nazareth". Furthermore, neither the Gospel of Luke nor Matthew say that Jesus came "from Nazareth" in this scene. Matthew has: "Matthew 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. "

This is one of Bernard Muller's old arguments, I think. (He brought something to the forum that is now lacking in his absence.) I have also referred to it on occasion.

It tends to dovetail with arguments that derive "Nazarene" from a group name based on a Semitic word (for "branch").

[rgprice]

This is one of Bernard Muller's old arguments, I think. (He brought something to the forum that is now lacking in his absence.) I have also referred to it on occasion.

It tends to dovetail with arguments that derive "Nazarene" from a group name based on a Semitic word (for "branch").

Right, and the point is that there are a variety of little things that indicate that the opening of Mark, or really the entirety of Mark as there are many other little things as well such as Mark 14: 49, has been modified from an original narrative.

[Peter Kirby]

This is one of Bernard Muller's old arguments, I think. (He brought something to the forum that is now lacking in his absence.) I have also referred to it on occasion.

It tends to dovetail with arguments that derive "Nazarene" from a group name based on a Semitic word (for "branch").

Right, and the point is that there are a variety of little things that indicate that the opening of Mark, or really the entirety of Mark as there are many other little things as well such as Mark 14: 49, has been modified from an original narrative.

Not necessarily. I doubt what you are saying is widely persuasive in its current state of presentation. I have not really understood your methodology (if there is any, given that one has not been clearly laid out). I have not even seen any real justification for why this should be considered, in principle, more probable... let alone that your particular choices have generally been correct.

Perhaps there is still value in the exercise despite all that. I would agree that exploratory exercises like this can have value. The trick is simultaneously having lots of ideas and being able to sift through them. The "sift through them" and soberly weigh them step has not yet been reached. This is part of why it isn't easy to offer constructive comments; it seems like half a presentation so far.

[rgprice]

Okay, I've gone back to the drawing board on this, but I'm still convinced that the opening of Mark contains significant changes from the original narrative. Having worked through some other issues, here is a new attempt at reconstructing the original opening of "Mark". My changes are underlined.

The word of God came to John, as it is written in the prophets:
“Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You,
Who will prepare Your way;
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight.’”

4 John appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. 6 John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey. 7 And he was preaching, and saying, “After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals. 8 I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came and baptized John at the Jordan; 10 Immediately he saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit as a dove coming down to him; 11 and a voice came out of the heavens: “This is my Son, the Beloved; In him I am well-pleased.”

12 Immediately the Spirit impelled him to go out into the wilderness. 13 And he was in the wilderness forty days being tested by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to him.

14 Now after John had been delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the good news.”

Previously I was thinking that this opening would have had Jesus descending form heaven, but I concede that this is not the case. However, I do still think that, most importantly, it was John who was driven into the wilderness to be tested by Satan, not Jesus.

Here is the support for this reconstruction.

The opening of Luke reads:

3 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, 2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, 4 as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah,

The quotes from the prophets are prefaced with the statement that the word of God came to John. That the "word of God" came to John is what causes John to make preparations for the Lord. One can also argue, however, for the standard opening of Mark here starting from v2 that the actions of John are fulfilling the words of the prophets without having been told to do so. So either, the quotes are "instructions to John", in which case the Gospel opens with the "word of God coming to John" or the reader is just being informed of the these statements by the prophets as context for what they are about to read about John, in which case canonical v2 is basically the opening. But that the original narrative opened with the statement about the word of God coming to John can help explain the opening of the Gospel of John, which re-interprets this passage.

v9 tells us that something "came to pass". What John had just said that was someone was going to come that would performs a baptism with the Holy Spirit. If we are told that it "came to pass" then that means what John had just foretold was then happening.

In this reconstruction, the voice is speaking to John. In canonical Mark the voice is speaking to Jesus. In the Transfiguration the voice is also speaking to Peter, James and John, not to Jesus. In the Transfiguration we read:

7 Then a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is My Son, the Beloved, listen to Him!”

That it was John who was driven into the wilderness and "delivered up" to Satan explains v14. Now 14 makes full sense in the context of the narrative, and doesn't require waiting to Mark 6 to be explained. John wasn't "arrested", which we only learn about many chapters later. The "delivering up" of John is explained by the prior events. This would of course then require that the content about John being arrested by Herod in Mark 6 be a later revision of the text, and indeed removal of that actually makes the narrative of Mark 6 flow more smoothly.

Furthermore, as talked about in this thread, the Pauline letters use this language to describe the delivering up of people to Satan.

1 Cor 5:3 For I, though absent in body, am present in spirit, and as if present I have already pronounced judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to hand this man over [παραδοῦναι] to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord

1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies made earlier about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19 having faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have suffered shipwreck in the faith; 20 among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have turned over [παρέδωκα] to Satan, so that they may be taught not to blaspheme.

And yes, we now come back to the Parable of the Sower:

Mark 4:2 And He was teaching them many things in parables, and was saying to them in His teaching, 3 “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4 as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and devoured it. 5 Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. 6 And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. 7 Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. 8 Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.” 9 And He was saying, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
...
13 And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. 16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when they hear the word, they immediately receive it with joy. 17 But they have no root and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. 18 And others are those sown among the thorns: these are the ones who hear the word, 19 but the cares of the age and the lure of wealth and the desire for other things come in and choke the word, and it yields nothing. 20 And these are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.”

Again, I contend that the Parable of the Sower is about characters in the narrative:
1) John "the Baptist", who is on the path where the word is sown, but then Satan "immediately" took away the word that was sown in him.
2) Simon "the Rock" (Peter), who received the word with joy, but then falls away when trouble arises (when Jesus is arrested).
3) James and John "the sons of Thunder", who hear the word, but demand of Jesus that he fulfills their "desires".
4) Paul "the Apostle" who, I propose, is the one that Jesus reveals himself to after the Crucifixion in the original story and the only one who goes on to spread the "good news" after his death in the original account.

So not only does my proposed reconstruction of the opening make more sense of he opening itself, with the proclamation of John the Baptist actually "coming to pass", and the delivering up of John being explained by his testing by Satan, but it also relates the Parable of the Sower to characters in the story.

[Giuseppe]

What do you do about the too much blunt way Jesus is sent in the wilderness, according to the canonical version?

I refer to Mark 1:12:

πνεῦμα αὐτὸν ἐκβάλλει εἰς τὴν ἔρημον.

I am inclined to think that this rapidity is designed to emphasize the precise temporal interval in the wilderness: 40 days, not one day less, not one day more.
If the spirit had delayed even only of a day in sending Jesus in the wilderness, the days would have been more than 40, so destroying the idea held in mind by 'Mark'.

Hence the verb ἐκβάλλει is a reference to the precise number of days in the wilderness: 40 days. Even beyond the meaning connected with the number 40, it is a very limited time, which makes virtually Jesus preach in Galilee just after the his baptism, hence the obvious corollary is that a such baptism was not a common baptism: it was decisive as temporal mark (pun intended) of the beginning of the Jesus' activity.

[rgprice]

Yeah, my thought is that the whole ministry of Jesus takes place in 40 days. I think one way to read it is that John was sent into the wilderness for 40 days. But from the moment that John was sent away, Jesus went to Galilee and began his ministry, so his ministry ran concurrent with the 40 days that John was away. John wasn't necessarily "killed".

Again, look at the usage in 1 Timothy. What exactly that is supposed to mean I'm not sure, but the claim is that these people were "delivered" to Satan to be taught a lesson. Surely one who is killed doesn't "learn".

So one possible way to read this is that John was "banished" for 40 days, while Jesus did his thing. And the ministry of Jesus, as you say, began immediately at the time that John was banished. But again, in this case, it is Jesus who baptizes John, not the other way around.

[MrMacSon]

The opening of Luke [chapter 3] reads:

3 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, 2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, 4 as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah:

..“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,

......‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
......... make straight paths for him.
..5 . Every valley shall be filled in,
......... every mountain and hill made low.
..... The crooked roads shall become straight,
......... the rough ways smooth.

..6 . And all people will see God’s salvation’.” .. [Isaiah 40:3-5]

The quotes from the prophets are prefaced with the statement that the word of God came to John. That the "word of God" came to John is what causes John to make preparations for the Lord ...

This makes me think of the Secret Book of John (aka the Secret Revelation of Apocryphon of John) attributed to a Sethian author.

One version (of the Apocryphon of John): http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-davies.html:

The two "long versions" of the text, found in NHC II and NHC IV, are virtually identical except for orthographic variations. The translation presented here is based on NHC II,1: Michael Waldstein and Frederik Wisse, 'The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1;III,1; And IV,1 With BG 8502,2' (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies), Brill Academic Pub, 1995. The "Short" version of this text, based on NHL Codex III,1 and Codex BG 8502,2

---

1 The teaching [of the Savi]or and the re[vel]ation of the mysteries [together with the things] hidden in silence a[nd those (things) w]hich he taught to Joh[n, his dis]ciple.

2 [Now] it happened one [d]ay when John [the brother] of James, the so[n]s of Ze[bed]ee, was going up to the temple, a [Pha]risee named Arimanios [appr]oached him. And he said to him, "Where is your teacher, the one whom you used to follow?"

I [said] to him, "He returned to the pla[ce] from which he came."

The Pharisee [said to me, "This Nazorene] deceived you (pl.) with error. He filled [your (pl.) ears with lies], and he shut [your hearts. He turned you (pl.)] from the tradi[tions of your fathers."

When I, John,] heard] these things, {I turned} from the temp[le to a mountainous and desert place] and I grieved [greatly in my heart, asking] "How [was the Savior appointed?"] and "Why was he sent [into the world] by h[is father? Who is his] father who [sent him? And of what sort] is [that] aeon [to which we will go?] For what did he slay about it? He told us] that the aeon to which [we will go is mo]deled on the [indestructible] aeon, [but he did not tea]ch us abou[t what sort] the latter is.]"

3 Just th[en, while I was thinking these things, behold the [heavens opened, and] the [whole] crea[tion] below the heaven [was] illumi­nated. And [the world] quaked.

{I} was [afraid and behold] in the light {I} saw [a child stand]ing by me. When I sa[w him, he becam]e like an old person and he shifted hi]s semblance, becoming like a servant. These (semblances) before me were not multiple beings but there was only a (single) [li]keness [having] many forms in the lig[ht]. And the [semblances] appeared through each other, a[nd] the [semblan]ce had three forms.

[He] said to me, "John, Jo[h]n, why do you doubt and why [are you] fearful? Are [you] are a stranger to this likeness? —This is to say, do not [be] faint[hea]rted! I am the one who [dwells with you (pl.)] al­ways. I [am the Father. I am] the Mother. I am the So[n]. I am the one who is undefiled and unpolluted.

"[Now I have come to teach] you what exists [and what has come into being an]d what must [come into being so that you will under­stand the] things which are not apparent [and those which are appar­ent, and to teach] you about the [immovable] genera[tion of] the perfe[ct Human.

"N]ow [then lift up] your [face so that] you will [receive] the things that {I will teach you] today [and you will tell them to your fellow] spirits who c[ome from the immovable] generation of the perfect Hu­man."

< continues >

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-long.html

Another, third version (at the same website): http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-long.html
(similar to the [other] short version hyper-linked above)

• ... The Secret Book of John is a complex developmental mythology that has been made more complicated because, over the years, versions of it have been “improved” by several levels of scribal alteration. One set of levels is the evident addition of rather lengthy texts (a list of magical names, a dialogue on the soul, a providence hymn) to an original version that lacked them. Another set of levels is the addition by various scribes of what they intended to be useful comments, explanations, clarifications and supplementary details. The former processes continue to be added to the text when scholars such as myself add introductory paragraphs, or indeed whole book-length texts to introduce or comment on the Secret Book of John. The latter processes continue when scholars interrupt the flow of the text by adding subheadings (such as the section headings added here in Bold Italics) and notes intended to assist the reader’s understanding.
  
  I believe that readers will benefit from seeing the various individual elements constituting the text as separable units and so be relieved from thinking that somehow all of this material constitutes one originally coherent whole. To this end, in this version of my translation I use two formatting techniques to identify and separate-out several forms of material that seem to have been added at different times to the original. For more extensive textual additions I have arranged that the translation make use of different color fonts ...
  
  http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-davies.html
  
  

---

eta (edited here from Wikipedia):
There are four known manuscripts of 'The Secret Book of John': three in the Nag Hammadi codices* and one in the 'Berlin Codex' (which has many minor differences with the longer Nag Hammadi's codices II and IV versions). All date to the 4th century and are Coptic translations from Greek. Two of the three Nag Hammadi manuscripts are similar enough that they probably derive from the same source (eg., they both incorporate a lengthy excerpt from a certain Book of Zoroaster (appended as chapters 15:29 – 19:8f)). Scholars [generally] agree that the main revealing entity was Jesus.

* I'm pretty sure at least two are at the start of the codices they're in; something scholars interpret as their significance to those who put them together

A point of departure between codices is the portrayal of the Savior/Christ figure. The Berlin Codex generally uses the term “Christ” more frequently, whereas the Nag Hammadi Codex III narrative [the shortest of the three NHC manuscripts] often substitutes the term “Lord” or “Savior”. However, the Nag Hammadi Codex III closes its text with the prayer “Jesus Christ, Amen.” An additional distinction, with regards to the Christian framing of the texts, is that Nag Hammadi Codex III goes into greater detail about the descent of the Christ/Savior figure into the prison-world of [the] Demiurge and his role in facilitating the reawakening and liberation of mankind. These distinctions may represent a certain degree of variation in the way that Gnostic cosmology was woven into a Christian context [or they may reflect Christian editing].

eta#2
Apparently, there's a Syriac version Nah, that was the Apocalypse of John