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.
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,

Those passages from BeDuhn are beside the point I'm making. The issue is not just, "that Marcion had a read a Gospel and then written his Gospel in response to it."

BeDuhn almost exclusively focusses on the Evangelion and it's relationship to Luke. He hardly touches the other canonical gospels in that 2013 book* or in his subsequent 2015 and 2017 published articles. While he mentioned Klinghardt 3-4 times in his book, he only cited Klinghardt's 2008 paper (which is understandable given Klinghardt's more substantive published works are later, starting with his 2015 2-volume book, which is in German). DeDuhn does cite Klinghardt's book in his 2017 paper (which was published along side a paper by Klinghardt of the same title: both had been given at a seminar or conference).

The agreement between Klinghardt and myself that Marcion’s Gospel is the earlier version, pre-Marcion in its composition, and not a tendentious derivative of Luke, leads to the implication that it is a closer witness to the textual dependencies of the Synoptic Gospels

Vinzent first outlined his proposals and arguments in his 2014 book, Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels.

So, I don't think BeDuhn's failure to even mention Vinzent and Klinghart's [more] substantial arguments can be used to dismiss those arguments.

BeDuhn wrote in 2015

Few researchers seem to have considered the fact that writers such as Tertullian were in no position to know the state of texts in or before the time of Marcion, nor did they have any independent information that would have told them whether Marcion’s or their versions of these writings were the earlier one. Even Tertullian himself acknowledged that he could not actually prove the priority of his community’s versions of the texts over Marcion’s.

Nor do I think Tertullian's textual commentary about Marcion is trustworthy, but it does give clues as to what might have been going on.

* Where DeDuhn does touch most on the gospel of John in relation to Marcion's Evangelion and Luke is on p. 84, culminating in endnote 60 (p. 350-1), and on p. 85 culminating in endnote 67 (p.351-2).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

fwiw, here's Klinghart in 2017

.
the Marcionite Gospel appears to be the root from which the whole gospel tradition emerges and with which all later stages remain closely connected. Obviously, every subsequent stage had knowledge, and made use of, all available previous stages of this development. This uniformity leads to numerous consequences, including the inquiry about the historical Jesus. Whereas the Two-Source Theory assumes two independent origins, namely Mark and ‘Q’, which allegedly validate each other and thereby claim a certain reliability, this model involves no such thing as an independent source. The search for the ‘historical Jesus’, therefore, becomes a completely different, if not an impossible, task.

John is included in this model. From the beginning, the source-critical separation of John from the Synoptics was artificial and arbitrary, because it was based on aspects of style and content rather than on keen literary observations. If we look at the literary evidence, there is little doubt that John is central to this integral network of gospels. The most obvious example is the passion narrative where Luke and John, time and again, agree with each other in opposition to Mark and Matthew.11 This is one of the features that never received adequate attention because of the dominance of the Two-Source Theory with which it is completely incompatible.12

Finally, this model is based exclusively on literary observations: the literary dependency is fully sufficient for explaining all aspects of the evidence. This has a number of implications. On the one hand, there is no need for employing oral traditions in order to explain the literary evidence. According to the principle of Ockham’s razor, the oral tradition is eliminated as a significant formative factor of the gospel tradition. On the other hand, the closely meshed and highly literary relations between the single stages within this model prove that gospel writing was a sophisticated task that required concentrated desk-work of textual redaction: our gospel writers were highly skilled editors.

11, Klinghardt, Das älteste Evangelium, I.276–403. Recent explanations of this phenomenon assume, therefore, the priority of John before Luke; cf. B. Shellard, ‘The Relationship of Luke and John: A Fresh Look at an Old Problem’, JThS 46 (1995) 71–98; M. A. Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel (Atlanta: SBL, 2001).
12. Cf. M. Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 691, who states that no model of the tradition history can explain this complexity.

In his 2015 paper, 'The New Marcion: Rethinking the ”Arch-Heretic”,' BeDuhn noted there were various versions of Marcion's Evangelion with varying degrees of harmonization to Matthew.

He argued that,

"Since Marcionite copyists would not be familiar with Matthew, all such harmonizations should have occurred before the incorporation of the Evangelion into Marcion’s NT canon. Therefore, the existence of such variation in harmonized readings in our witnesses to the Evangelion suggests that, at the time Marcion canonized it, it existed in multiple copies that in their pre-Marcionite transmission had met with varying degrees of influence from Matthew."

I'm not sure about that (I can't follow or understand that, so maybe it's me)

BeDuhn goes on to say

What this means is that even Marcion may not have fully appreciated the implications of the “textual revolution” with its new valuation of the fixed text. He apparently found it sufficient to identify which texts in circulation should be considered authoritative, without carefully monitoring their acquisition and incorporation into canonical sets for use in his communities to be sure that their texts were completely consistent. As a result, multiple copies full of variant readings came into use in Marcionite communities. For all his focus on the merits of stabilizing Christianity in text, Marcion apparently did not fully make the mental shift from the oral to the written gospel and realize the issues regarding the proper fixity of a literary text. It is only when a text has been declared authoritative, and so much rests upon exactly what it says, that the concern arises to establish a fixed form of it. As the inventor of a canon, Marcion had not yet been shaped in his own thinking by “canonical” considerations of just how much was at stake in variant readings.

Canonization brought with it a fundamentally new attitude towards the text, opposed to fluidity and further adaptation. In the generation after Marcion, it was still possible for Tatian to re-edit Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into a new gospel, the Diatessaron, and many less successful gospel reworkings date to roughly this period. But the followers of Marcion had already shut the door on this further literary innovation, and by the end of the second century Irenaeus put forth a similar argument against new gospels on behalf of non-Marcionite Christians. These were arguments about the ultimate resort of authority, carried out among a literate elite of Christian leadership. (p. 177)

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. 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.
I internet-searched 'john gospel demiurge' [using Microsoft Bing/Edge] and came up with a few blog posts at the top of the results

In the Gospel of John the Demiurge is the first archon from the Greek word Archee translated beginning Archee 746 ἀρχή ...

the Greek words Archon and Demiurge are linked together.

The Gospel of John Chapter 1

1 ¶ Originally (746 ἀρχή), was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.
2 The same, was originally (746 ἀρχή), with God.
3 All things, through him, came into existence, and, without him, came into existence, not even one thing: that which hath come into existence, (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible)

The Gospel of John 1:1 ¶ In a beginning (746 ἀρχή) was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.
2 This was in a beginning (746 ἀρχή) with the God.
3 All through it was done; and without it was done not even one, that has been done. (Emphatic Diaglott)

Ptolemy's Commentary on The Gospel of John Prologue:

Now since he is speaking of the first origination, he does well to begin the teaching at the beginning, i.e with the Son and the Word. He speaks as follows: "The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning, with God" [Jn 1:1].
First, he distinguishes three things: God; beginning; Word. Then he unites them: (Logos [Word], Theos [God], and Arche [beginning] are one) this is to show forth both the emanation of the latter two, i.e. the Son and the Word, and their union with one another, and simultaneously with the Father. For the beginning was in the Father and from the Father; and the Word was in the beginning and from the beginning. Well did he say, "The Word was in the beginning", for it was in the Son. "And the Word was with God." So was the beginning. "And the word was God"; reasonably so, for what is engendered from God is God. This shows the order of emanation. "The entirety was made through it, and without it was not anything made" [Jn 1:3]. For the Word became the cause of the forming and origination of all the aeons that came after it. (Ptolemy's Commentary on The Gospel of John Prologue)

[the next passage is Heracleon: Fragments from his Commentary on the Gospel of John

https://www.gnosticdoctrine.com/2018/08 ... iurge.html

This from the Gnostic Library page on Valentinianism
... the Demiurge in Valentinianism is quite different in character from the hostile creator figure familiar from other schools of Gnosticism. In the Sethian school, for example, the Demiurge is a hostile demonic force who creates the material world in order to trap the spiritual elements. In contrast, Valentinians "show a relatively positive attitude towards the craftsman of the world or god of Israel" (Layton 1987) ...

The Valentinian teacher Ptolemy strongly criticizes non-Valentinian Gnostics who taught that the Demiurge was evil. In his view, those who view the creator as evil "do not comprehend what was said by the Savior...Only thoughtless people have this idea, people who do not recognize the providence of the creator and so are blind not only the eye of the soul but even in the eye of the body" (Letter to Flora 3:2-6). They are as "completely in error" as orthodox Christians who taught that the Demiurge was the highest God (Letter to Flora 3:2) ...

In contrast, he and other Valentinians steadfastly maintained that "the creation is not due to a god who corrupts but to one who is just and hates evil" (Letter to Flora 3:6). He carefully distinguished the Demiurge from both God and the Devil. According to Ptolemy, "he is essentially different from these two (God and the Devil) and is between them, he is rightly given the name, Middle" (Letter to Flora 7:4). He is "neither good nor evil and unjust, can properly be called just , since he is the arbitrator of the justice which depends on him" (Letter to Flora 7:5).

In his excellent book on Gnosticism, Giovanni Filoramo (1990) compares the negative portrayal of the Demiurge in the Sethian school with the more positive Valentinian view:

the Valentinian Demiurge, the latter being a representative of the psychic element that is also called upon to participate in the work of salvation. Devoid of scarifying characteristics, Ptolemy's Demiurge is simply the Creator of the Seven Heavens, who lives above them (Filoramo 1990)

The Demiurge and the Old Testament

... "everything must be understood in relation to that person who was indicated through John, that is the Craftsman of the world" (Herakleon Fragment 8, cf. John 1:18-29). Herakleon claims that in his prophetic role, the Demiurge is "the forerunner of Christ, for he is in fact a kind of servant running before his master" (Herakleon Fragment 8) ...

The Tripartite Tractate describes how the Greek philosophers and Jews all sought to know the truth. They correctly recognized the existence of the Demiurge and his powers. However, they erroneously believed that the Demiurge was the highest God. The mere existence of "the powers themselves seem to hinder them, as if they were the Totality" (Tripartite Tractate 110:2-3). Similarly, according to the Valentinian Exposition, the existence of the Demiurge serves to "cast a shadow over the union and the Fullness" for those who are ignorant of the truth (Valentinian Exposition 39).

According to Herakleon, the Demiurge is "the creation or the Creator whom the Jews worship" (Herakleon Fragment 20). Jews and non-Gnostic Christians mistakenly worshipped him because they were ignorant of the true God. As Herakleon says, "The previous worshippers worshipped in flesh and in error him who is not the Father. . . They worshipped the creation and not the true creator, who is Christ, since 'all things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being'" (Herakleon Fragment 22 cf. John 1:3). In contrast those who are spiritual and have received gnosis of the true God "worship neither the creation nor the Demiurge, but the Father of Truth" (Herakleon Fragment 20, cf. also Fragment 24) ...

http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Demiurge.htm

Another
In Judaism, it was an established tradition to split off particular faculties of God from God himself and credit those lesser divine beings, such as Wisdom, with having assisted God in the creation of the world, as in the eighth chapter of Proverbs and the twenty-fourth chapter of Sirach. Christians inherited and extended this tradition, such as when the first chapter of the Gospel of John identifies Christ with God’s Word/Logos and gives him an indispensable role in creation.[13]

So the Gnostics’ attribution of the act of creation to someone other than the ultimate God was hardly radical by the standards of the Christianity and Judaism of their time – indeed, it was downright conventional. But the Gnostics’ influences all portrayed these divine helpers as benevolent and their work as in harmony with the wishes of the perfectly good ultimate God. How did the Gnostics get the idea that the demiurge was instead malevolent?

Strange as it may at first seem, this, too, was probably a good-faith interpretation of Christian scriptures that were already widespread, popular, and authoritative in the Gnostics’ time. After all, the Gospel of Luke (4:6) and the Gospel of Matthew (4:8) assume that Satan is the ruler of the world when Satan offers Jesus the world in exchange for his worship. Likewise, the Gospel of John mentions an evil “ruler (archon) of this world” in no less than three places (12:31, 14:30, and 16:11). Luke (10:18) and John (12:31) both speak of Satan or a Satan-like entity ruling the earth from the sky and being vanquished by Jesus’s ministry.[14] 1 John 5:19 is even more blunt: “We know that we are God’s children, and that the whole world lies under the power of the evil one.”[15]

The Christians of the first and second centuries, including the Gnostics, were tasked with the monumental project of figuring out what to do with the “Old Testament” that they were supplanting with their own “New Testament.” In the words of Simone Pétrement, they were attempting “to limit the value of the Old Testament within a religion that nevertheless preserves it.”[16]

https://gnosticismexplained.org/the-gnostic-demiurge/

There's also
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: The Hermetic-influenced John, in Alexandria?

Post by billd89 »

On the Alexandrian thesis for John, see LINK to John J. Gunther, “The Alexandrian Gospel and Letters of John” in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 4 (October, 1979), pp. 581-603:
The Alexandrian origin of John gains further support from the pro-Egyptian Hermetic literature. The syncretistic writings in the name of Hermes Trismegistus (a designation of Thoth, the Egyptian God of wisdom and knowledge, who was identified with Hermes) were penned in the land of the Nile by the end of the third century. The earliest and most important book, the Poimandres (i.e. Pe-eime-n-Re, 'the knowledge of Ra'-?), is generally dated between the years 50 and 150 AD. It is this first treatise that has the most points of contact with the Fourth Gospel. The relation of the Hermetic Books to our Gospel has been studied most thoroughly by C. H. Dodd and F. M. Braun. The Poimandres evidently was influenced by the Septuagint and the Alexandrian Jewish exegesis of Genesis 1-3, though not necessarily by Philo. However, like the famed Alexandrian exegete and like the Fourth Evangelist, the Poimandres writer describes the Deity in terms of light; knowledge of God as he reveals himself brings life. The Logos of the Poimandres as the creative thought of God, is essentially Stoic, however.

In the judgment of F.M. Braun (1955), “the literary contacts between the Johannine and Hermetic writings are sufficiently numerous and precise so as not to be the result of chance.” Certainly if there was any literary dependence, it would be more likely to occur among the later strata of the Hermetic Books, e.g., Treatise 13, ‘On Rebirth’. But our concern is with the Poimandres in its relation to the Gospel. Dodd (1953) writes: "While there is nothing to lead us to infer any direct literary relationship between the two writings, it will hardly be questioned that the similarities of expression suggest a ground." Braun (1955) reasonably holds that the Evangelist was sensitive to the “aspirations of the elite souls to whom the Alexandrian philosophy and mysticism offered their method of salvation, his thought, his vocabulary, his style.” Rudolph Schnackenburg (1968) deduces: “The evangelist tries to make his message penetrate to the type of pagan Hellenistic reader who is revealed to us in the Hermetic literature." O.Battaglia (1969) finds a common mystical Hellenistic syncretism, to which Alexandrian Judaism made its contribution. Poimandres thus joins Philo as witness to the Hellenistic world of the Evangelist. Whoever would extend this milieu beyond Alexandria in order to find another home for the Gospel must assume the burden of demonstrating that both Philonic and Hermetic thought were so well known and appealing elsewhere in the last quarter of the first century that the Evangelist would have used the same apologetic approach even if he and his readers were not living in Egypt.

He who is not sensitive to the Alexandrine Salvation will never know it, likewise.
Image
Post Reply