Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."

Post by rgprice »

Firstly, multiple church fathers note that the "Gospel of John" was heavily used by various Gnostics. In his commentary on John, Origen discusses some of their interpretations of the Gospel. In one particular section he notes an alterative reading of the prologue by Heracleon. It reads: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm

And as his statements on the passage are obviously very much forced and in the face of the evidence, for what he considers divine is excluded from the all, and what he regards as purely evil is, that and nothing else, the all things, we need not waste our time in rebutting what is, on the face of it, absurd, when, without any warrant from Scripture, he adds to the words, Without Him was nothing made, the further words, Of what is in the earth and the creation. In this proposal, which has no inner probability to recommend it, he is asking us, in fact, to trust him as we do the prophets, or the Apostles, who had authority and were not responsible to men for the writings belonging to man's salvation, which they handed to those about them and to those who should come after. He had, also, a private interpretation of his own of the words: All things were made through Him, when he said that it was the Logos who caused the demiurge to make the world, not, however, the Logos from whom or by whom, but Him through whom, taking the written words in a different sense from that of common parlance. For, if the truth of the matter was as he considers, then the writer ought to have said that all things were made through the demiurge by the Word, and not through the Word by the demiurge. We accept the through whom, as it is usually understood, and have brought evidence in support of our interpretation, while he not only puts forward a new rendering of his own, unsupported by the divine Scripture, but appears even to scorn the truth and shamelessly and openly oppose it. For he says: It was not the Logos who made all things, as under another who was the operating agent, taking the through whom in this sense, but another made them, the Logos Himself being the operating agent. This is not a suitable occasion for the proof that it was not the demiurge who became the servant of the Logos and made the world; but that the Logos became the servant of the demiurge and formed the world.

Origen then is saying that according to Heracleon, the opening of John read:

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 of what is in the earth and the creation. 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.

Origen goes on to suggest that other parts of the opening were different in Heracleon's version also, leading to a totally different meaning, in which the prologue clarifies that the world was made by the demiurge.

Origen noted other differences between how Heracleon read John and his reading of John as well: http://gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm

One of the most important of these, is Heracleon's reading of John 8:44, which he reads as "You belong to the father of the Devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires." in opposition to Origen's (and the accepted orthodox) reading of the passage as "You belong to your father, the Devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires."

Many recent scholars, however, agree that the earliest manuscripts of even the orthodox version of John did read: "You belong to the father of the Devil", indicating that the God of the Jews is the father of the Devil, who is different from the Father of Jesus.

So, if Heracleon's reading of this passage was actually the correct reading (now widely acknowledged), then this indicates that at least some layers of John were written to support the Gnostic teaching that the Jewish God was the Creator of the material world, who was a different being than the Father of Jesus, who was purely heavenly.

Does this also mean, then, that Heracleon was reading a slightly different (and arguably more original) version of John, in which the Prologue was worded differently, and thus that the Prologue of canonical John has been revised?

This appears to be a situation much like Tertullian's commentary on Marcion's Gospel, in which Tertullian recorded differences between Marcion's Gospel and Luke, claiming that Marcion's version was Gnostic revision of the orthodox original, but we now understand that in fact Luke is a revision of the original Gospel used by Marcion. Could not the same thing be the case here, with Origen disputing what he believed to have been an alteration of the orthodox original, when in fact it was Heracleon who was reading the original and Origen who was reading the altered version?

It does stand to reason, after all, that if John 8:44 does indicate that the Jews are from "the Father of the Devil", who is a different God than the "Father of Jesus", then the introduction must have originally supported this reading. As it is right now, the introduction is in conflict with this reading. That is possible, under the assumption that the Prologue is a later addition to a Gnostic source text, but then why would the Gnostics have been reading from the version with the Prologue? So it seems to me that there must at some point have been a version of John in which the Prologue and John 8:44 were in harmony.

Also, on a side note, does anyone have an on-line resource for Origen's Commentary on John Books 13-32? All I can find on-line is up through book 10.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 3:00 am
Firstly, multiple church fathers note that the "Gospel of John" was heavily used by various Gnostics. In his commentary on John, Origen discusses some of their interpretations of the Gospel. In one particular section he notes an alterative reading of the prologue by Heracleon

[Was] Heracleon was reading a slightly different (and arguably more original) version of John, in which the Prologue was worded differently, and thus that the Prologue of canonical John has been revised?

This appears to be a situation much like Tertullian's commentary on Marcion's Gospel, in which Tertullian recorded differences between Marcion's Gospel and Luke, claiming that Marcion's version was Gnostic revision of the orthodox original, but we now understand that in fact Luke is a revision of the original Gospel used by Marcion. Could not the same thing be the case here, with Origen disputing what he believed to have been an alteration of 'the orthodox original', when in fact it was Heracleon who was reading the original and Origen who was reading the altered version?
.
Aspects of this - versions of John and the prologue of John - are tied up with Markus Vinzent's (and Matthias Klinghardt's, and perhaps Jason Beduhn's) arguments [some of] the canonical gospels post-date the marcionite Euggelion / Euangelion (leaving aside the issue of the relationship of G.Mark to the marcionite gospel which you have touched on before, here viewtopic.php?p=120658#p120658)

Vinzent thinks Papias wrote a/the prologue of the Gospel of John. Vinzent has noted the Incipit argumentum secundum Iohannem attributed to Papias likely preserves (contrary to what many scholars want to believe) Papias actually & historically referring to G.John being a reaction to Marcion.

.
“According to Papias’ text as we have it in our manuscripts, John must have known of Marcion’s Gospel, must have read the Antitheses (the “contraria”) and, as a result of the later, must have redacted against them and rejected Marion".37

37 See also Filastrius, Haer. 45: “Marcion devictus atque fugatus a beato Iohanne evangelista et presbyterio de civitate Effesi.”

https://www.academia.edu/51206523/Vinze ... c_Question, p.39

Now, with regard to versions of John: in that article/paper Vinzent notes that Klinghardt proposes 'canonical redactions' of the Gospels whereas Vinzent thinks there were several version of these Gospels: ie. post-marcionite versions +/- pre-canonical versions of them: he thinks Marcion’s Antitheses is witness for the existence of post-marcionite and pre-canonical versions of these Gospels and that any [pre-]canonical redaction would have been dated later than Justin but before Irenaeus (from the bottom of p. 60 in the above article cited in the text-box).

So, given [some of] Vinzent's proposals and arguments around them, it could be likely that "the Prologue is a later addition to a [post-Marcion] source text" written by Papias.

If Vinzent and Klinghardt (and perhaps Beduhn) are right about the development of [most of] the canonical Gospels, including G.John, I doubt there'd be an 'orthodox original', and would think it's possible that any " 'Gnostics'...reading from [a] version with [a] Prologue", such as Heracleon, might have been part of a milieu of groups considering then new texts before or while the likes of Irenaeus and Tertullian were re-framing them as 'heretical'.

Vinzent thinks Marcion was the first to combine the protocanonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in his Antitheses, and that subsequent canonical redactions of them were used to gave credence to the canonical versions and to 'defend' them against the [false] accusations Marcion was said to have raised against them.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Nov 16, 2021 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."

Post by rgprice »

I disagree with Vinzent's reading of Papias and Tertullian. Vinzent reads passages such as the following from Tertullian and takes them at face value:

Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author. But we prefer to join issue on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed what may fairly be understood to be on our side. Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process. Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master — at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul ) was subsequent to the others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith.


Well, but Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles ) for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published as genuine and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. ... When Marcion complains that apostles are suspected (for their prevarication and dissimulation) of having even depraved the gospel, he thereby accuses Christ, by accusing those whom Christ chose.

Here Tertullian is doing what he does elsewhere, he is ASSUMING that Marcion had knowledge of the Gospels that he (Tertullian) uses. He assumes that when Marcion talked about "correcting the gospel of the apostles" that he is talking about written Gospels, when in fact Marcion was talking about gospel teachings.

So in fact, Marcion never made any comments about the canonical Gospels. But Vinzent sees this as evidence that Marcion knew the canonical Gospels or at least proto-canonical versions of them, by the names we now know them by. But that's not the case. Vinzent then ties to make a case that two things happened simultaneous: That Marcion was writing his Antithesis, which got leaked to the public, then in reaction to Marcion's Antithesis the Gospels of John and Matthew were produced, which Marcion then learned about and wrote about in his final draft of Antithesis. That's craziness.

Vinzent ends up relying on claims that Marcion's works were first published in draft form (possibly against his will). The canonical Gospels were derived from Marcion's draft Gospel, and then Marcion later published his final draft after the creation of the canonical Gospels. This makes what Tertullian wrote about the canonical Gospels coming before Marcion's correct.

Why Vinzent feels the need to concoct some scenario that makes Tertullian correct I have no idea. Quite plainly, Tertullian simply didn't know what he was talking about. Tertullian was simply wrong. There is no need to contrive a circumstance to make both Tertullian and Marconi correct in what they said. BeDuhn provides the much simpler explanation, when he notes simply that Marcion wasn't talking about correcting a written Gospel, he was talking about correcting gospel teachings.

Having said all that. I agree that there were most likely several versions of these Gospels and that all we have of Mark and John are versions that were revised for the orthodox NT. But I find it doubtful that Papias wrote the Prologue of John. I'm skeptical that we even know anything reliable about Papias or that the statements attributed to him are even authentic or correctly framed. All we have a fragments after all, quoted by others.

It seems to me that the core of John is a fundamentally Gnostic work. To me the question is: Was this a Gnostic Gospel that was revised to be less so, or was this a Gospel that represents a version of Gnosticism that was simply more orthodox in nature, and thus the Gospel didn't require much revision in order to be acceptable for the NT. For example if the Gospel was Appellean in nature, and thus supported the view that Jesus had a material body, maybe it was included simply for that reason.

But, elements of the text clearly contradict other parts of the text. This has lead scholars such as Teeple to conclude the work was comprised of layers that were not fully redacted and harmonized. This may be true, but if John 8 is so clearly Gnostic as it is, and puts forward the claim quite boldly that Jesus is the son of the Father that the Jews don't know, while the Jews are sons of the "Father of the Devil", then it would seem that this claim must, at some point, have been in harmony with the rest of the Gospel.

John to me hardly seems like a reaction against Marcionism, as Vinzent claims. It agrees with Marcionism far more than any of the other Gospels. On top of that, we have testimony from Origen that other Gnostics claimed to have an alterative reading of the Prologue which supported their Gnostic view. Right now the Prologue as we have it is quite odd, in that it is semi-Gnostic. It presents us with a preexistent Jesus who descends into the world from heaven, BUT who was also the Creator of the world. According to what Origen states, Heracleon (and perhaps the Valentinians more broadly) had a version of the text that said Jesus was NOT the Creator.

Now it also happens that the reconstruction of John by Teeple, in which he attempts to separate out which parts were written by different people, lends support to this. Teeple's work is based almost entirely on literary style. Within the Prologue Teeple identified three primary sources: An underlying Jewish poem, a Gnostic hymn, and an editor. Teeple proposed that the Gnostic Hymn was developed on top of an existing Jewish poem, and that this hymn was then integrated into the Gospel by an editor. It happens that several of the parts that he assigns to the editor are parts that provide problems for a more Gnostic reading.

For example, Teeple gives the following translation and assessment of John 1:12-14:

Gnostic Hymn:
John 1:12 But as many as received him, he gave to them authority to become children of God,

Editor:
to those believing in his name,

Gnostic Hymn:
13 who were begotten, not from bloods nor from the will of the flesh nor from the will of man, but from God.

If we recognize 12b as an insertion which may not have been in the Valentinian version of the Gospel, then we can see how the Prologue would actually fit with John 8:44. Because John 8 endorses the idea of predestination, i.e. that the Jews were born of the wrong Father, and thus they would not be saved. But 1:12b reverses this. With 1:12b how you were born doesn't matter, because you can "believe in his name" and thus be saved.

So with 1:12b in the Prologue, the Prologue is in disagreement with John 8, but simply by removing that part, the two are in agreement, or at least that portion of the Prologue becomes in agreement.

But now, if we accept 12b as an editorial revision and instead recognize the passage without it as the original, then the orthodox reading of the beginning of the Prologue now looks to be in disagreement with this part of the Prologue. If the Word created the world, then why is he against those who are from the world? That makes no sense.

Orthodox John 1:3 states: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Heracleon said that in his version it says the Word did NOT make the world. But even in the orthodox version, if the Word made the world, then why do we read John 1:13? "children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."

If the Word made the world, then why is being "of natural descent" a bad thing? Being "of natural descent" can only be a bad thing if the world is made by the demiurge, NOT by God nor by the Word. This reading complies with John 8.

So that's why to me the idea that Papias wrote the Prologue makes no sense. I think instead that Heracleon's version of the text was original, and the orthodox version is a Catholicizing revision. Or at least, I think there are reasons to consider this possibility.
lsayre
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."

Post by lsayre »

As to John 1:12-13, I clearly see the concept of being "born again" as well as the concepts of rising from Hylic to Psychic and from Psychic to Pneumatic within these verses.
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."

Post by rgprice »

lsayre wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:45 am As to John 1:12-13, I clearly see the concept of being "born again" as well as the concepts of rising from Hylic to Psychic and from Psychic to Pneumatic within these verses.
Ahh, seemingly, BUT, where does the idea of being "born again" come from? This is also a later Catholic idea, which was invented to deal with these very problems.

Where do you read about being "born again" in the Pauline letters? Nowhere. This is like the idea of the "second coming". The "second coming" and being "born again" are inventions to deal with similar problems. The Pauline letters mention nothing about a "second coming" or "return" of Jesus. Instead they speak about the coming of Jesus as if it will happen for the first time.

Now, lets see what 1 John has to say about all this:

1 John 3:
7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

This has nothing to do with baptism or being "born again". This is all about pre-destination and the claim that some people were born of the devil while others were born of God from the outset. This is what the Valentinians taught. And this all ties directly back into how we read John 8, as well as the Prologue.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:36 am
I disagree with Vinzent's reading of Papias and Tertullian. Vinzent reads passages such as the following from Tertullian and takes them at face value:

Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author. But we prefer to join issue on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed what may fairly be understood to be on our side. Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process. Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master — at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul ) was subsequent to the others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith.


Well, but Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles ) for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published as genuine and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. ... When Marcion complains that apostles are suspected (for their prevarication and dissimulation) of having even depraved the gospel, he thereby accuses Christ, by accusing those whom Christ chose.

... Vinzent sees this as evidence that Marcion knew the canonical Gospels or at least proto-canonical versions of them, by the names we now know them by ... Vinzent then t[r]ies to make a case that two things happened simultaneous: That Marcion was writing his Antithesis, which got leaked to the public,1 then, in reaction to Marcion's Antithesis, the Gospels of John and Matthew [and Luke] were produced, which Marcion then learned about and wrote about in his final draft of Antithesis. That's craziness.

Vinzent ends up relying on claims that Marcion's works2 were first 'published' in draft form (possibly against his will) ...

I don't think that you've re-presented or represented what Vinzent thinks or proposes.

1 It's not Marcion's Antithesis/Antitheses that Vinzent thinks was leaked to the public: Vinzent thinks it was just the gospel Marcion had which was leaked (whether Marcion wrote it is beside the point here). 2 So not [all of] Marcion's works were leaked, just 'his' Gospel.

Then, that first gospel version was used and edited by a few people, including by 'Matthew', 'Luke' and 'John', and Marcion became aware of those versions (of the gospel he had 'possessed' first (+/- wrote +/- edited)).

Then Marcion produced a second version of 'his' gospel[text] (as some like to call it), and published that second 'edition' along with the [ten?] Pauline letters (+/- an epistle to the Ladoceans(sp?)) and his Antithesis/Antitheses.

So -
rgprice wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:36 am [Vinzent proposes: the] canonical Gospels were derived from Marcion's draft Gospel, and then Marcion later published his final draft after the creation of [proto]canonical Gospels. [Vinzent proposes: this] makes what Tertullian wrote about the canonical Gospels coming before Marcion's correct.
tbc.
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."

Post by rgprice »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:41 pm I don't think that you've re-presented or represented what Vinzent thinks or proposes.

1 It's not Marcion's Antithesis/Antitheses that Vinzent thinks was leaked to the public: Vinzent thinks it was just the gospel Marcion had which was leaked (whether Marcion wrote it is beside the point here). 2 So not [all of] Marcion's works were leaked, just 'his' Gospel.

Then, that first gospel version was used and edited by a few people, including by 'Matthew', 'Luke' and 'John', and Marcion became aware of those versions (of the gospel he had 'possessed' first (+/- wrote +/- edited)).

Then Marcion produced a second version of 'his' gospel[text] (as some like to call it), and published that second 'edition' along with the [ten?] Pauline letters (+/- an epistle to the Ladoceans(sp?)) and his Antithesis/Antitheses.
Thanks for the clarification, but either way, it sounds like nonsense to me. Again I come back to the fact that the statements that Vinzent are citing were simply misinterpreted by orthodox readers. Marcion didn't make statements against the orthodox Gospels in his Antitheses. He simply had no knowledge of them at all. Whatever statements Marcoin made in his Antitheses about correcting others, he was talking about correcting "teachings", not written Gospels.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:15 pm Thanks for the clarification, but either way, it sounds like nonsense to me.
  • Cheers, RG. I'll need to sit back and look at it all with your perspective in mind (through your lens, to put it another way).
First, can you clarify this? -
rgprice wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:15 pm Again I come back to the fact that the statements that Vinzent are citing were simply misinterpreted by orthodox readers.
  1. 'the statements that Vinzent [is] citing'?
  2. by 'orthodox readers' do you mean readers such as Tertullian and Irenaeus?

rgprice wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:15 pm ... Marcion didn't make statements against the orthodox Gospels in his Antitheses. He simply had no knowledge of them at all. Whatever statements Marcoin made in his Antitheses about correcting others, he was talking about correcting "teachings", not written Gospels.
  • One thing I'd challenge is the notion that Marcion was making statements against 'the orthodox Gospels' (italics mine, of course)

    Vinzent proposes Marcion was making statements against proto-canonical / proto-orthodox 'gospels'
    • eta: and the orthodox then doctored those proto texts, against Marcion, including judaizing them

    One would think 'teachings' would be represented by written texts


    And, it's worth me emphasising that my first reply here was intended to provide a context for your OP:
    • use of the "Gospel of John" by various 'Gnostics',
    • and -
      rgprice wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 3:00 am
      Does this also mean, then, that Heracleon was reading a slightly different (and arguably more original) version of John, in which the Prologue was worded differently, and thus that the Prologue of canonical John has been revised?

      This appears to be a situation much like Tertullian's commentary on Marcion's Gospel, in which Tertullian recorded differences between Marcion's Gospel and Luke ... we now understand that, in fact, Luke is a revision of the original Gospel used by Marcion. Could not the same thing be the case here, with Origen disputing what he believed to have been an alteration of the orthodox original, when in fact it was Heracleon who was reading the original and Origen who was reading the altered version?
    If John (or a [proto]version of it) was, like Luke, a new post Marcion text, then there might have been a quite a bit of interest in it, especially if it was part of a new collection including 4-5 similar but different texts
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."

Post by ABuddhist »

rgprice wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:25 am Now, lets see what 1 John has to say about all this:

1 John 3:
7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

This has nothing to do with baptism or being "born again". This is all about pre-destination and the claim that some people were born of the devil while others were born of God from the outset. This is what the Valentinians taught. And this all ties directly back into how we read John 8, as well as the Prologue.
With all due respect, I see no predestination in the passage that you quote.
rgprice
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."

Post by rgprice »

@MrMacSon What I'm saying is, that Tertullian misunderstood or was misrepresenting that Marcion said. I'll quote BeDuhn instead:

The little that we know factually is that Marcion charged that
“the gospel” adhered to by members of the Christian community
in Rome was not authentic, that it diverged from the true record
of “the gospel” known to him. We know that he presented to
those who heeded him an textual embodiment of “the Gospel and
Apostle” that he considered authentic, along with a systematic
interpretive exposition of how the faith embodied in these authentic
texts was incompatible with the teachings of the Jewish
scriptures. That is all we know. We do not have a single statement of
Marcion on those passages he supposedly excised from
his texts as corruptions. We cannot be sure that Marcion’s statements
regarding a corrupt “gospel” in use in Rome even referred
to a text, rather than to an oral teaching. In fact, the expression
“the gospel” continued to be used in the latter sense of the religious
message of Christianity in general long after Marcion, and
his own innovation in titling a part of his New Testament “The
Gospel” (Evangelion) may have been in pointed response to what
he regarded as the instability of resting authority on an uncodified
set of traditions. Even when Tertullian says that Marcion excised
something from “the gospel,” he often refers not to edits
worked upon a specific gospel text, but to Marcion’s failure to
include in his New Testament all of the gospel materials accepted
in Tertullian’s community, including not only Luke but also
Matthew, Mark, and John.39 These remarks of Tertullian have been
regularly misunderstood in modern scholarship.


Marcion, then, did not name Luke in his work, nor in any way identified it by a specific comparison of textual content. Otherwise, Tertullian would not be forced to hypothesize. This detail has been overlooked by many modern researchers, who repeat Tertullian’s polemical charges as if they are established historical facts. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that Marcion wrote anything comparing the text of the Evangelion to an alternate version of the same text, in other words, Catholic Luke.

So, I share this view of BeDuhn's. Marcion was not correcting at written Gospel narrative, as Tertullian charges, he was rather correcting teachings.

However, if we were to think that Marcion had a read a Gospel and then written his Gospel in response to it, the most reasonable conclusion we could make at this point would be that the Gospel Marcion had read would have been the Gospel of Mark, or a proto-canonical version of it. It is evident that Luke and Matthew are both derived from Marcion's, so he couldn't have read them. The scenario of a leaked early version of Marcion's Gospel inspiring the writing of the proto-canonical Gospels, that Marcion then read, and then reacted to by writing the Antithesis is quite far fetched.

Rather, Marcion wrote his Antithesis in reaction to teachings he was hearing in the Christian communities, not alterative versions of the Gospel narrative. But if Marcion were correcting a "Gospel narrative" surely what he was correcting was proto-Mark. (But again, I don't think that's what he was doing. I agree with BeDuhn that Marcion was merely "publishing" an existing Gospel that he did not write.)
Post Reply