Early reception of the Gospel of John

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by rgprice »

ABuddhist wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:55 am Have you read Roger Parvus's theory about how GJohn was written (in its original form) by Apelles for the Apellean sect?
Yeah. I had come to that conclusion myself before reading his material on it, but now I'm not entirely sure. I thinking labeling it Apellean may be too ambitious.

I think the opening of John is original, i.e. it wasn't revised by some proto-orthodox editor. That being the case, it means that whoever wrote it had to view the Lord as the creator of the world. As far as I can see, Apelles didn't think that. Apelles thought that the world was mal-formed by an angel or lesser god.

But, I do think that whoever wrote the intro thought that Jesus descended directly from heaven, without being born. It would seem to me that if the intro were added or revised by some orthodox writer, then they would have clarified that Jesus was born of a woman. John does later say that Jesus had a mother, and his mother is part of the signs dialog, but it seems that various Gnostics had ways to acknowledging an "earth mother" for Jesus without accepting that he was actually born. I mean even Marcion did. After all, John 6:38 explicitly says: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

Interestingly, the question about Jesus coming from heaven is brushed aside and not really answered, which also seems on-par with a Gnostic approach: "6:42 And they were saying, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop complaining among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

So the writer really left that thread hanging. I think an orthodox writer or reviser would have clarified this by saying that he didn't really come directly from heaven or something along those lines, to make clear that he was born of Mary. But that never happens.

So yeah, John seems to me to be almost entirely Gnostic, except maybe the ending. But is Apelles really the right individual to have written it? I think its better say that the work has many Apellean leanings. I also think it would be difficult for this to be a Gospel of Apelleas because wouldn't it have been recognized as such? I think it was most likely written in Rome, perhaps around 130-140, shortly after Marcion's Gospel gained traction.

And in Rome at that time there was a very broad spectrum of ideas that blended between Marcionism, Valentinianism and proto-orthodoxy. It would seem then that "John" was selected by the editor of the first edition of the NT because its strong monotheism and its pushback against Marcionite and Valentinian claims that Jesus was incorporeal and/or that the world was not made by the Highest God. But nevertheless, it certainly leans in the Apellean direction, just not all the way. Again, some people try to account for this by claiming proto-orthodox revisions, but I just don't buy the case that John was heavily revised. I thin it is what it is and it is mostly as it was originally written.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:19 am Thanks Neil.

On a side note. The dating question of John is interesting, but I'm now of the opinion that "John", or at least the core of the material, was produced before Matthew and canonical Luke. I do think it is derived from Marcion's Gospel. While there is a tendency to see it as perhaps a Gnostic Gospel with proto-orthodox revisions, I'm not sure really how much revision it received. I don't think there were many revisions throughout. Certainly 21, and maybe from 19-21, but for much of it, I think that if someone were revising it they would have made more changes than they did.
I've been working through a DeepL translation of Bruno Bauer's examination of the Gospel of John and have been impressed with what comes across as the detailed directness and persuasive simplicity of his reasons for viewing the Gospel of John's reliance on Matthew, Mark and Luke-Acts. Obviously you may have quite different responses to his specific arguments. I have been adding each chapter as a new page to my blog Vridar -- check the right column and scan down until you see Pages. It's under that heading.

As I said, it's a machine translation but I've read over the results and made some changes for easier reading here and there, but there are still a few places where only the most dedicated reader will profit from it. I have kept the German original (adapted from the Gohtic/Franktu original) alongside the translation so readers can check the original for themselves.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by John2 »

Church fathers from the 2nd & 3rd railed against various Gnostics. They documented many of their teachings. They claimed over and and over how those teachings were wrong.

Yet many of the teachings that they railed against can be found in the Gospel of John. So how did they deal with the fact that that many of the teachings they called heresies exist in a Gospel that they felt compelled to defend?

But we could say the same thing about Mark, Matthew and Luke, I think. On one hand, the church fathers railed against Jewish Christians, but on the other they used writings that espouse Jewish Christian teachings (like Torah observance). The orthodox used, altered and explained away what was there, which in my view were originally Jewish Christian or pro-Jewish Christian gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke).

Why did the orthodox do this instead of writing their own gospels? Because these were the gospels that had helped spread Christianity and were popular and thus they could not be dispensed with, only altered or explained away.

And likewise John was written prior to orthodox hegemony and had also become popular and could not be dispensed with, only altered or explained away.

Any gospels written after these gospels were suspect or rejected by the orthodox because they could be, due to their lateness and "inauthenticity."
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by rgprice »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:12 pm I've been working through a DeepL translation of Bruno Bauer's examination of the Gospel of John and have been impressed with what comes across as the detailed directness and persuasive simplicity of his reasons for viewing the Gospel of John's reliance on Matthew, Mark and Luke-Acts. Obviously you may have quite different responses to his specific arguments. I have been adding each chapter as a new page to my blog Vridar -- check the right column and scan down until you see Pages. It's under that heading.

As I said, it's a machine translation but I've read over the results and made some changes for easier reading here and there, but there are still a few places where only the most dedicated reader will profit from it. I have kept the German original (adapted from the Gohtic/Franktu original) alongside the translation so readers can check the original for themselves.
Thanks I'm reading this now. Can you point me to examples where he says there is a dependency on Matthew? I'm sure that Bauer didn't view Matthew and Luke as having derived from Marcion's Gospel. But if John, Matthew and Luke all derive from Marcion, then of course it may appear that there are dependencies with Luke or Matthew. This is unless he is specifically citing something that is particular to Matthew that doesn't exist in Luke, which would lead to the conclusion that it also likely didn't exist in Marcion.
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by rgprice »

John2 wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:49 pm But we could say the same thing about Mark, Matthew and Luke, I think. On one hand, the church fathers railed against Jewish Christians, but on the other they used writings that espouse Jewish Christian teachings (like Torah observance). The orthodox used, altered and explained away what was there, which in my view were originally Jewish Christian or pro-Jewish Christian gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke).

Why did the orthodox do this instead of writing their own gospels? Because these were the gospels that had helped spread Christianity and were popular and thus they could not be dispensed with, only altered or explained away.

And likewise John was written prior to orthodox hegemony and had also become popular and could not be dispensed with, only altered or explained away.

Any gospels written after these gospels were suspect or rejected by the orthodox because they could be, due to their lateness and "inauthenticity."
Right, but it seems to me that the Gospel of John obviously leaves open the possibility that Jesus descended directly from heaven and was unborn. I haven't seen any orthodox attempts to clarify this or explain how the Gospel of John conforms to the view that Jesus was born of Mary. Perhaps some such arguments exist. I would expect them to. I'd like to know of them if they do.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:40 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:12 pm I've been working through a DeepL translation of Bruno Bauer's examination of the Gospel of John and have been impressed with what comes across as the detailed directness and persuasive simplicity of his reasons for viewing the Gospel of John's reliance on Matthew, Mark and Luke-Acts. Obviously you may have quite different responses to his specific arguments. I have been adding each chapter as a new page to my blog Vridar -- check the right column and scan down until you see Pages. It's under that heading.

As I said, it's a machine translation but I've read over the results and made some changes for easier reading here and there, but there are still a few places where only the most dedicated reader will profit from it. I have kept the German original (adapted from the Gohtic/Franktu original) alongside the translation so readers can check the original for themselves.
Thanks I'm reading this now. Can you point me to examples where he says there is a dependency on Matthew? I'm sure that Bauer didn't view Matthew and Luke as having derived from Marcion's Gospel. But if John, Matthew and Luke all derive from Marcion, then of course it may appear that there are dependencies with Luke or Matthew. This is unless he is specifically citing something that is particular to Matthew that doesn't exist in Luke, which would lead to the conclusion that it also likely didn't exist in Marcion.
Just do a word search for Matthew, Luke and Acts in each of the chapters to see what's there. I have two more chapters to post before Book 1 (BB's discussion of the Gospel of John) is complete and will let you know if I discover anything additional in those two.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by GakuseiDon »

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:44 pmRight, but it seems to me that the Gospel of John obviously leaves open the possibility that Jesus descended directly from heaven and was unborn. I haven't seen any orthodox attempts to clarify this or explain how the Gospel of John conforms to the view that Jesus was born of Mary. Perhaps some such arguments exist. I would expect them to. I'd like to know of them if they do.
gJohn does refer to Jesus' mother, though:

John 19:
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!


Perhaps those passages are consdiered interpolations, but they do seem sufficient to establish gJohn as having Jesus born of Mary.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:40 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:12 pm I've been working through a DeepL translation of Bruno Bauer's examination of the Gospel of John and have been impressed with what comes across as the detailed directness and persuasive simplicity of his reasons for viewing the Gospel of John's reliance on Matthew, Mark and Luke-Acts. Obviously you may have quite different responses to his specific arguments. I have been adding each chapter as a new page to my blog Vridar -- check the right column and scan down until you see Pages. It's under that heading.

As I said, it's a machine translation but I've read over the results and made some changes for easier reading here and there, but there are still a few places where only the most dedicated reader will profit from it. I have kept the German original (adapted from the Gohtic/Franktu original) alongside the translation so readers can check the original for themselves.
Thanks I'm reading this now. Can you point me to examples where he says there is a dependency on Matthew? I'm sure that Bauer didn't view Matthew and Luke as having derived from Marcion's Gospel. But if John, Matthew and Luke all derive from Marcion, then of course it may appear that there are dependencies with Luke or Matthew. This is unless he is specifically citing something that is particular to Matthew that doesn't exist in Luke, which would lead to the conclusion that it also likely didn't exist in Marcion.
I've just added chapter 13. Do a word search on Acts or Acts of the Apostles and there you will see BB's case for the fourth evangelist drawing upon Acts for one of his miracle stories.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by davidmartin »

it's not completely clear John's prologue about the Word is referring to Jesus
The Word 'Logos' as a concept existed quite happily on it's own, so should it be assumed any original version made that connection?
The Odes have it "The Son of the Most High appeared in the perfection of His Father and light dawned from the Word that was before time in Him"
Not quite saying the son was the Word but the Word pre-existed in him, drawing a distinction?
Reference also has to be made to the text Trimorphic Protennoia i recon as an alternative theological view

If that were the case John originally lacked any mention of Jesus's birth or pre-existence and would seem to affirm his humanity - his Mum gets him to perform his first miracle!
Perhaps it's a case of earlier subtle distinctions giving way to absolutes about Jesus's divinity

I notice Paul doesn't seem taken with the logos idea, is it me or does he oppose it in 1 Corinthians?
Romans has "But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim"
To him The Word is his gospel!

There's little reason to late date John for its high Christology if one suggests a later interpolation of (an unnamed!)Jesus as The Word in the prologue
On the other hand if logos type speculation was an original Christian feature then John might be more true to form than the synoptics are, and should be considered the primary gospel before them even if Mark might have preceded it in time, it was basically made of earlier material?
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by GakuseiDon »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:18 amOn the other hand if logos type speculation was an original Christian feature then John might be more true to form than the synoptics are, and should be considered the primary gospel before them even if Mark might have preceded it in time, it was basically made of earlier material?
The Hebrew equivalent is "memra". According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra

"The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided...

In Scripture "the word of the Lord" commonly denotes the speech addressed to patriarch or prophet (Gen. xv. 1; Num. xii. 6, xxiii. 5; I Sam. iii. 21; Amos v. 1-8); but frequently it denotes also the creative word: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made" (Ps. xxxiii. 6; comp. "For He spake, and it was done"; "He sendeth his word, and melteth them [the ice]"; "Fire and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his word"; Ps. xxxiii. 9, cxlvii. 18, cxlviii. 8). In this sense it is said, "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps. cxix. 89). "The Word," heard and announced by the prophet, often became, in the conception of the seer, an efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messenger of God: "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel" (Isa. ix. 7 [A. V. 8], lv. 11); "He sent his word, and healed them" (Ps. cvii. 20); and comp. "his word runneth very swiftly" (Ps. cxlvii. 15).

On comparing "Memra" with "Logos", the author writes:

The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man" (see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity.

The Word which "the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a manifestation of His own power" appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 14). In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term "Logos," in the sense of "the Word by which God made the world, or made His Law or Himself known to man," was changed into "Christ" (see "Apostolic Constitutions," vii. 25-26, 34-38, et al.).

Post Reply