Reconstructing an Older Gospel of John (Proto-John)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jagd
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:59 pm

Reconstructing an Older Gospel of John (Proto-John)

Post by Jagd »

I think it may be fruitful to identify the older, pre-synoptically harmonized portions of the Gospel of John. My premise of this is based a few presuppositions:
  • Partial or absolute Thomasine priority (it all began with the Gospel of Thomas; you can thank Martijn Linssen for providing a persuasive argument for this)
  • Johannine familiarity and derivation from the Gospel of Thomas.
  • An older version of John (proto-John) contemporaneous with the middle-era gospels, namely Matthew, Luke, and a redacted/synoptically harmonized Mark.
I know Audlin has spent decades working on reconstructing his version of the older/original version of John, so maybe all the proper work is already done by him, but I think it would still be good to lay out the basics here.

Here is a tentative chain of transmission:
0. Gospel of Thomas (at least an old form of its logia; dually written in Aramaic & Greek, as Linssen as pointed out)
1. Proto-Mark
2. Gospel of the Lord (proto-Luke of Marcion) and proto-John
3. Matthew, Luke, and Mark (harmonized)
4. John (harmonized)
5. Acts

It appears that the gospel tradition took off with proto-Mark, inventing narrative befitting of the sayer of the Thomasine logia, with Lord/Marcion and proto-John developing in their own unique ways:
  • Lord/Marcion mostly elaborating upon proto-Mark, incorporating some more Thomasine logia and, possibly, wholesale inventing the passion narrative.
  • Proto-John elaborating upon Thomas (and, oftentimes, arguing against it) within the model of the proto-Markan narrative.
A quick note on historical context: Ehrman and other historicists assert that John’s hostility toward Judaeans stems from:
  • The failure for Christianity to catch on with the Judaeans, and...
  • The general want to disassociate from the troublemaking Judaeans after the continual wars with the Roman Empire
Both of these appear to be historical conjecture. Instead, it appears proto-Orthodox Christianity (a pesky term, but anyway) was founded by Greeks for Greeks, with any non-Greek outcrop remaining rather minor. Even the so-called gnostic traditions appear deeply dwelling with the Hellenistic worldview.

Anyway, here are some general portions that I've discovered claimed as earliest:
  • Of the prologue, only John 1:1-5 is primary
  • According to Kari Syreeni in Becoming John: The Making of a Passion Gospel, the original version of John ended at chapter 12, with the passion narrative added later based on the synoptic materials. In this case, the story wraps up with the entry into Jerusalem, discourse over being glorified and "lifted up into heaven", and a summary of the teaching. Syreeni also claims that there are remnants of proto-John in chapters 14-17, and then everything from 18 onwards was added later. In that case, the story would end with the farewell discourse (and perhaps a glorification/transfiguration/ascent/apotheosis instead of the passion narrative; Giuseppe has done well in pointing out that the earlier version of Mark may have ended with the transfiguration as something like an ascent).
  • Raymond E. Brown's similar structure of the Book of Signs (John 1-12) and the Book of Glory (John 13-21).
Based on this, it would appear that there's little room for John the Baptist in proto-John (indeed, his inclusion in canonical John appears clumsy and connected with the spurious "eyewitness" element that appears to come from the later post-synoptic editor, attempting to endow the strange proto-John text with a kind of authenticity) and the oldest version of John may have been a Markan succession of miracles (signs) paired with various discourses, potentially based on Thomasine precedent.
Last edited by Jagd on Sat Nov 27, 2021 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Reconstructing an Older Gospel of John (Proto-John)

Post by Charles Wilson »

Jagd wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:48 pmBased on this, it would appear that there's little room for John the Baptist in proto-John
Jagd --

I wish you the best in your quest.

There are many Paths you can take. Following the Iterations "John-Mark" is tough work!
I would suggest Howard Teeple's Literary Origins of the Gospel of John, even if only for the background it provides. You can find it on Amazon and Archive.org.

I do have a disagreement with your statement above.

John 1: 15, 27, 29, 36 (RSV):
[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")
[27] even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."
[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
[36] and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"

These verses point to an earlier Document. Indeed, these verses point to the Mishmarot Priesthood. They are Semitic (Verse 29 points back over 1000 years from "Bible Times" to ancient Sumer!)

I believe the Character "John" is VERY necessary.

Keep Posting!

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sun Nov 28, 2021 5:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Jagd
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Reconstructing an Older Gospel of John (Proto-John)

Post by Jagd »

Thanks, Charles!

I'll check out the Teeple book. I think I've only scratched the surface of the Gospel of John's making, but it's probably the most tangled of all the canonical four. Oftentimes reading it feels like wandering through a maze.

As to the exclusion of John the Baptist, perhaps I was too hasty to suggest wholesale omission -- I think the narrative around him is dubious, potentially a construction based on details as scant as the basics of Mark's John the Baptist material, but things like the Lamb of God element certainly seem deeply rooted in the Christ story in general, especially with the recurring sheep & shepherd motifs found in John. It may be that such shepherd things were roped together into the narrative after preexisting in some fashion (perhaps arising in Thomas, since its found in the logia there), and probably coming from more ancient traditions, as you suggest. Indeed, I wager that there's a lot of Hermes-shepherd imagery that isn't talked about too much.
Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:47 pm These verses point to an earlier Document. Indeed, these verses point to the Mishmarot Priesthood. They are Semitic (Verse 29 points back over 1000 years from "Bible Times" to ancient Sumer!
Could you expand on the Sumerian origins?
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Reconstructing an Older Gospel of John (Proto-John)

Post by Charles Wilson »

From an older Post ( posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=124215 ):

"Giovanni Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla, ISBN 0-385-13152-6, p. 277:

"Genesis 10: 8 - 11 reports that the first warrior on earth was named Nimrod. For this name no satisfactory explanation has been found...The study of Eblaite and Ugaritic personal names reveals a frequency of the animal name plus the name of a god...ni-mi-ri-ya, "the panther of Ya," illustrate this pattern breaks down into nmr, "panther" and -d, "Hadd"...[Panther-of-Hadd]".

"That might imply that some person had an ingenious realization of Biblical Hebrew and broke down "Immr-Yah" into "Lamb-of-God" in John to make "Jesus" appear as the "Passover Lamb"..."

I may Post a bit more on this if time allows today but there 'tis.

Best to you,

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jagd
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Reconstructing an Older Gospel of John (Proto-John)

Post by Jagd »

Charles Wilson wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:47 am "Genesis 10: 8 - 11 reports that the first warrior on earth was named Nimrod. For this name no satisfactory explanation has been found...The study of Eblaite and Ugaritic personal names reveals a frequency of the animal name plus the name of a god...ni-mi-ri-ya, "the panther of Ya," illustrate this pattern breaks down into nmmr, "panther" and -d, "Hadd"...[Panther-of-Hadd]".

"That might imply that some person had an ingenious realization of Biblical Hebrew and broke down "Immr-Yah" into "Lamb-of-God" in John to make "Jesus" appear as the "Passover Lamb"..."
Interesting! I cannot help but be reminded of the whole Yeshu(a) ben Pantera idea that appears to have been fairly popular in (perhaps mocking) portrayals of Christianity's founder. Pantera meaning "panther" has a whole new and deeper significance here! Also perhaps good to note that in the Toledot Yeshu the man Pantera (the true father of Yeshua/Jesus) is described as "like a warrior" in appearance. This warrior-like image appears in Celsus when he describes Jesus's true father as a Greco-Roman imperial soldier named Pantera. The fact that we have a statue of a soldier born in the Levant with an Aramaic name and the surname Pantera from the 1st century is, honestly, haunting to me.

But anyway! This connection to Nimrod, warriorship, and the the lamb of god with "panther" just made my mind race.

Also, wouldn't "Hadd" mean Hadad instead of Yahweh?
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Reconstructing an Older Gospel of John (Proto-John)

Post by Charles Wilson »

The complete paragraph:

"Genesis 10: 8 - 11 reports that the first warrior on earth was named Nimrod. For this name no satisfactory explanation has been found, but current opinion tends to favor a Mesopotamian origin of the personal name. Thus, Ebalite da-si-ma-ad , "the he-goat of the Grand", en-si-ma-lik, "the goat of Malik" and Ugaritic ibrd, "the bull of Hadd", ni-mi-ri-ya, "the panther of Ya," illustrate this pattern breaks down into nmr, "panther" and -d, "Hadd". Which is to say this good Canaanite name the founder of Babel, Erech and Akkad (Gen. 10: 10) may well have been a Canaanite."

There is some discussion in the Literature of "El" and Yah" and Pettinato provides some helpful additions to the Knowledge.

For my own Path, I look at "marya" and, rightly or wrongly, break it down into "mar" => "Lord" and "ya" (That is, "Lamb-of-Yah" => "Lord").
"Maaar-ee-yaaah, I just met a girl named Mariaaaaa..." and so on.
[Edit Note: The song is from "West Side Story" if the reference is too opaque. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyofWTw0bqY ]

"immr-Yah":

John 1: 29 (RSV):

[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

The importance of GJohn cannot be overestimated. We also get Nicodemus, who doesn't understand a Semitic idiom:

John 3: 4 (RSV):

[4] Nicode'mus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

The word is (or should be...) a variant of Sumerian "Amargi", which means "Return to Mother". Nicodemus understands the word(s). He doesn't understand the meaning, which would imply that Nicodemus, "...a ruler of the Jews", is a foreigner, probably Roman.

This all REEKS of Transvaluation. The Goal is to make this strange religion understandable to surrounding Greek and Roman Orthodoxy. It ends up with a reinstatement of human sacrifice, something the Judaic Sensibilities would never allow but which was decided early on and imposed on the Judaic Culture:

John 13: 49 - 51 (RSV):

[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."
[51] He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation

Caiaphas is one of those "evil, corrupt High Priest types", yet he has the Power of Prophecy.
What does he see? The Power of God as of old? The casting out of the Romans and Herodians?

"...you do not understand that it is expedient for you..."

It is as if the Romans wrote that for Caiaphas.
Oh, wait...

CW

PS: Homework Assignment: Who could possibly have had the knowledge of Semitic Culture and History to have published the Sumerian material? ESPECIALLY ideas such as "Lamb-of-God" and the like?
Post Reply