Early reception of the Gospel of John

[neilgodfrey]

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.

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.

The Gospel of John is clearly a gospel of metaphors. Flesh, water, birth, slavery, food, temple, blindness, healing, even "word", are scarcely ever meant to be read literally. Even named persons are presented as symbolic types (e.g. Martha and Mary). I think one would need to have some courage or foolhardiness to be quick to simply assume that even family members were intended by the author/s to be understood literally.

[rgprice]

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.

Yeah, there are more mentions of Jesus' mother in John than this. But there is also a mention of Jesus' mother in our reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel, and mention of his family, but Marcion also considered Jesus to have been unborn and also incorporeal. So those things are not real obstacles to the view that Jesus was unborn.

[GakuseiDon]

Yeah, there are more mentions of Jesus' mother in John than this. But there is also a mention of Jesus' mother in our reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel, and mention of his family, but Marcion also considered Jesus to have been unborn and also incorporeal. So those things are not real obstacles to the view that Jesus was unborn.

In what ways are they not real obstacles to the view that Jesus was unborn? Additional references in John show that Jesus had siblings as well as a mother:

John 2
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine...
...
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

Marcion leaves those passages out, but includes the passage: "Who is my mother and who is my brethren?":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... llord.html

19. And it was told him by certain which said, "Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee"
20. And he answered and said unto them, " Who is my mother and who is my brethren? My mother and my brethren are these, which hear the word of God, and do it!"

According to Tertullian, Marcion used the above passage to deny that Jesus had an actual mother and brethren. But the implication in gJohn was that Jesus was born and had brothers. How do you view the implications in gJohn, such that they aren't obstacles to the idea of an unborn Jesus?

[perseusomega9]

John 2
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine...
...

I wonder if mother originally read Mary.

[GakuseiDon]

I wonder if mother originally read Mary.

The author never refers to Jesus's mother as "Mary", but there are other Marys that he refers to:

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.

[perseusomega9]

I didn't mean Mary as the mother, just plain Mary without qualification/obfuscation. Speculative for sure, but I see the gospel undergoing several edits over time.

[rgprice]

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.

Firstly, some of those examples may not really be dependencies, but if we suppose that they are, I think the case is much stronger for Acts being dependent on John than the other way around.

Bauer states that the healing of the lame man in Acts is more well written than the healing of the blind man in John, but this of course would seem to indicate that the scenes in John are more primitive. The scenes in Acts are more well developed.

I very much see Luke/Acts/Pastorals as some of the latest writings of the NT, with perhaps only 2 Peter being later. Acts very much seems to me to be fully informed by much of the other material that is in the NT and to be written in a way to respond to it and to try and tie it all together to create a coherent narrative out of it. Acts is highly derivative at every turn.

I have a much harder time seeing John as being reactionary to Luke/Acts. It fails really to either refute or support many of the theological positions put forward, particularly in Acts. I don't see the opening of John as either countering or supporting the birth stories of Matthew/Luke, rather it seems to be unware of them. It does, however, appear to be a counter to docetism/Marcionism.

The opening of John counters the idea that Jesus was incorporeal and counters the idea that the world was a created by a lesser or evil deity, as many Gnostics taught.

The way I see the development of orthodox ideas about the origin of Jesus though, puts John as a midway point between Gnosticism and orthodoxy. I think firstly, the Pauline letters conceive of Jesus as a heavenly being, with no position on whether we was corporeal or incorporeal. I do think that the Pauline letters, and the Christ Hymn from Philippians are attempts to identify the Suffering Servant of Isaiah as an incarnation of the Lord, known as Jesus. So I think the original concept is that Isaiah 53 is describing the crucifixion of the Lord who is identified by the Paulinists as the incarnation of the Word of God.

I see direct lines between the Christ Hymn of Philippians, the Christological Hymn of Ephesians and the opening of John. I think all of these works are identifying the Word as the Lord. I think there are certainly relationships between Colossians/Ephesians and GJohn in terms of theology. Ephesians talks a lot about love like John does, and uses similar language around light and darkness.

So I see Mark as pre-Gnostic, being written prior to the rise of Gnosticism and prior to the debates between the proto-orthodox monotheists and the dualistic Gnostics. John as being written in a late stage of Gnosticism on the road toward orthodoxy, by someone like an Apellean who had broken from Marcionism or Valentinism, and Matthew and Luke/Acts as being early orthodox works produced specifically to counter Gnosticism.

[rgprice]

John 2
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine...
...

I wonder if mother originally read Mary.

I've wondered about that myself, which brings up a whole host of possibilities that I've tried to ignore for now :p

It raises teh specter that originally there was no "mother of Jesus", rather there was just Mary who was like a consort. This Mary was then turned into Jesus' mother.

But, this prospect complicates my understanding of Mark, so I've kind of ignored it. It does raise the possibility that some of the material in John is actually the earliest.

But look at what it possibly solves:

First lets take the wedding:

2 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and [Mary] was there; 2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine ran out, [Mary] said to Him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “What business do you have with Me, woman? My hour has not yet come.” 5 [Mary] said to the servants, “Whatever He tells you, do it.” 6 Now there were six stone waterpots standing there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing two or three measures each. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He *said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” And they took it to him. 9 Now when the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the groom, 10 and *said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the guests are drunk, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and revealed His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.

12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He and [Mary] and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days.

Now look at the Crucifixion:

25 Now beside the cross of Jesus stood [Mary]. 26 So when Jesus saw [Mary] and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to [Mary], “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

The original of course has Jesus say this to "his mother", but Jesus' mother plays almost no role in the Gospel of John, nor for that matter in Mark or the main body of Luke, i.e. Marcion's Gospel. But Mary (Magdalene) plays a major role in John. Does it not make more sense that on the cross Jesus unites his beloved disciple with Mary who has followed, cared for, and anointed Jesus, then his mother who is largely ignored in the narrative and never even named?

I'm not saying I fully endorse this, just that it has struck me before as an interesting possibility.

[Giuseppe]

Ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ σου is wrongly translated as: "here is your mother".

The correct traduction is : See (Imperative) your mother.

Hence the spiritual Christ, having just abandoned the Beloved Disciple on the cross, commands him to see the his earthly mother.

this is a separationism à la Basilides: the Christ is impassible, laughing about the victim and the people around, while the man on the cross is suffering

[ABuddhist]

Ἴδε ἡ μήτηρ σου is wrongly translated as: "here is your mother".

The correct traduction is : See (Imperative) your mother.

Hence the spiritual Christ, having just abandoned the Beloved Disciple on the cross, commands him to see the his earthly mother.

this is a separationism à la Basilides: the Christ is impassible, laughing about the victim and the people around, while the man on the cross is suffering

I suppose that being commanded to see one's Earthly mother could be an allegory for separationism, but such an interpretation you did not support with reasoning.

Assuming that it reflects separationism, it need not reflect the precise model of separationism that you mention,in which Christ laughs at his suffering. Why do you think that it does?