Origen on John: "Without Him was nothing made... of what is in the earth and the creation."
Posted: 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
Origen then is saying that according to Heracleon, the opening of John read:
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.
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.