JOHN - The Lazy Apostle ?

by Lampokey 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  Gumby,

  I think the early "Johannine" community was clearly proto-Gnostic.

  The example of radical dualism I mentioned in my previous post is just one of many clues: Jesus as the eternal Revealer from heaven, "eternal life" as something present (5:24) and a matter of "knowledge" (gnôsis, cf. 17:3) are others.

  Cf. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

  The external evidence fixes the terminus ad quem for the Gospel of John. Irenaeus of Lyons made use of John (c. 180), and Tatian included the Gospel of John in his harmony (c. 170). The Gospel of John is also mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-200). Justin Martyr (c. 150-160) and the Epistula Apostolorum (c. 140-150) may have made use of the Gospel of John. But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles. These include the Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus Ref. 5.7.2-9 (c. 120-140), the Valentinian texts cited in Clement of Alexandria's Excerpta ex Theodotou (c. 140-160), a Valentinian Exposition to the Prologue of the Gospel of John quoted in Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. 1.8.5-6 (c. 140-160), and the commentary of Heracleon on John (c. 150-180, quoted in Origen's own commentary).

  Kysar writes: "In the place where the synoptics narrate the origin of the eucharist stands the account of the foot washing (13:1-10). The last meal Jesus celebrates with his disciples before his passion is not a Passover meal at all. Thus one of the basic features of the institution scenes in the synoptics is missing. Furthermore, there is no account of the baptism of Jesus, and there is confusion about whether or not Jesus practiced baptism (compare 3:22 and 4:2). Water baptism is treated critically and assigned strictly to the Baptizer in contrast with Spirit baptism (1:26, 31, 33). One is left with the impression that the sacraments of baptism and eucharist did not figure in the theology of the fourth evangelist." (p. 929)

  Kysar states: "The passages which seem to address the sacraments are sometimes thought to be redactional. Some maintain that 'water and' in 3:5 and the discourse in 6:51-59 are insertions of a later hand by one interested in strengthening the explicit sacramental teachings of the gospel. It has been recently argued that portions of chaps. 13-17 come froma redactor at the time of the writing of the Johannine epistles some ten years or more after the completion of the gospel." (p. 922)

  Norman Perrin believes that the redactor who added the sacramental passages to the Gospel of John also authored the first epistle of John, in which the sacraments are emphasized.

  Helms adduces evidence that there were divisions over the interpretation of John at an early period, as early as the writing of the epistles 1 John and 2 John. Consider the passages 1 John 2:18-19 and 2 John 7. Helms writes (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 163):

  Some members of the Johannine community departed, became a rival sect, over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, an event that leads the author of I John to the certainty that 'this is the last hour.' We do not know for sure who these secessionists were, but as Raymond Brown notes, they were 'not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their position by the Johannine Gospel and its implications' (1979, 107). This seems likely, until we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh,' and 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.' Brown's argument founders on his insistence that 'John exactly as we have it' (108, his italics) was the text used by those who left the Johannine community. Brown refuses to 'exclude certain passages from the Fourth Gospel on the grounds that they were probably not in the tradition known to the secessionists but were added by the redactor (either later or as anti-secessionist revision)' (1979, 109). He admits that many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John' (1979, 109) but continues to write as if there were no revision of the Fourth Gospel.

  Helms states, "we need to note that part of the purpose of Irenaeus was to attack the teachings of Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century" (op. cit., p. 162). Cerinthus was "educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by a primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him...Moreover, after [Jesus'] baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being" (1.26.1). Irenaeus stated that the purpose of John at Ephesus was as follows:

  by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that 'knowledge' [gnosis] falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father and the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another (3.11.1)

  Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."
• 

  Leolaia

  Koester gives a great analysis of the composition of the Fourth Gospel and how its proto-gnostic substrate was shaped into its present form. Another relevant external piece of evidence is the close kinship of John with the near contemporaneous Odes of Solomon, which is not one of literary dependence (as the parallels are mostly conceptual and lexical) but rather common milieu. The evidence regarding provenance points to Syria, and similar language and christology in the Ignatian letters with John similarly points to Syria. One hypothesis that could explain this is that an early edition (or separate gospel that was used as a source) was produced in Syria in the same proto-Gnostic community that also produced the Odes of Solomon hymnbook and possibly the tract of 1 John. Then the gospel was redacted further in Asia Minor (probably Ephesus), where ch. 21 was added by the same circle that produced 2, 3 John (cf. the striking parallels in wording between ch. 21 and the latter two Johannine epistles); most likely, considering the internal (e.g. the superscription in v. 1 of both as from the "presbyter") and external (e.g. church fathers) evidence, the author of these was John the Presbyter, the mentor of Papias and Polycarp, who lived in Ephesus and was a chief opponent of the gnostic Cerinthus in the early second century AD. The Fourth Gospel would have thus received its popular name from him.

  Anyway, that's one possible explanation of the evidence, others are possible as well...
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  For me, as a Christian, the beauty of the Gospel of John is the primary feature to be considered. It is a jewel, no matter where its physical origins. Similar to the American Constiution and the Declaration of Independence, documents which were not in themselves invented in a vacuum. John Locke and many others sowed the seeds and roots for the American form of government but it was the Founding Fathers of the U.S. that put it all together and made it work for the land in which they lived.

  So too the Gospel of John. It is a formulation of excellence whether or not the roots of that excellence originated with its supposed writer or not. It is the meaning and beauty of the teachings contained in that Gospel that have power and worth. The Gospel of John is the personification of freedom and love no matter who is responsible for its writing. This I feel is the material point.

  Sabrina
• 

  Leolaia

  I agree, Greentreestillmine....as I said before, there are two places in the Bible that touched me so deeply I cried when I read them afresh....one was the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, the other was the gospel of John. Two powerful stories of love and reconciliation and triumph over tragedy.
• 

  mkr32208

  My $.02!

  If we can have a 500+ page book about Clinton's freaking life (add hilery and get 1000+) why the hell do I have less than 100 pages about Jesus! Why the f*ck do I have 150 psalms but 16 chapters of the book of Mark?

  Answer; God is a dumbass!
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Leolaia,

  I agree, Greentreestillmine....as I said before, there are two places in the Bible that touched me so deeply I cried when I read them afresh....one was the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, the other was the gospel of John. Two powerful stories of love and reconciliation and triumph over tragedy.

  I feel the same, Leolaia.

  Sabrina
• 

  Leolaia

  mkr3228....Well, we did have a five-volume work of extra stories and comments on Jesus' sayings compiled by the early second-century bishop Papias, straight from the oral reminiscenes of John the Presbyter himself and other old elders like Aristion (who possibly had something to do with the longer ending to Mark, that is Mark 16:9-20, according to one ancient manuscript). Wonderful someone took the trouble to preserve all the stories and sayings of Jesus that were still circulating orally at the time.

  Too bad the book was lost for good during the Middle Ages.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Too bad the book was lost for good during the Middle Ages.

  I didn't even know about such a compilation. If the stories and sayings were along the lines of "he who is without sin" then its a great loss. But if it was overwhelmingly anti-gnostic then good riddance. I would have loved a peek either way though.
• 

  Leolaia

  I didn't even know about such a compilation. If the stories and sayings were along the lines of "he who is without sin" then its a great loss. But if it was overwhelmingly anti-gnostic then good riddance. I would have loved a peek either way though.

  Funny you should mention that example (which is an unquestioned interpolation into John 8), since it is one of the stories that we know for sure was in Papias' Expositions on the Sayings of Our Lord (according to Eusebius, Church History 3.39, Agapius of Hierapolis, etc.). Some suggest that this pericope had its origin in Papias' book but there is evidence that Papias' version was a little different. Some fragments have survived, so we know it had some extra stories about Judas Iscariot, stories about what happened to the people resurrected by Jesus, and more parables and sayings of Jesus -- including those of a millenialist character. It had lots of legendary material from what can be determined by descriptions of it and would have been valuable for attesting the sort of oral storytelling that lay behind the narrative gospels. It would have also been very important for providing some of the earliest known interpretations of Jesus' parables (other than those provided by the canonical gospels themselves). It also provided the earliest known interpretation of Revelation (important considering his connection with John the Presbyter), and fortunately some of his commentary was preserved by Andrew of Caesarea.
• 

  Oroborus21

  I can see some people like to show off their knowledge and research...

  I am surprised that more people don't simply apply Occam's Razor...

  Look, let me translate all that debate about proto-orthodoxy and gnostic interpretation mumbo-jumbo and put this in succinct terms.

  In the first century and the decades that followed Christ's death there were several different competing schools of thought, or if you like forms of Christianity. Many of the first-hand witnesses to Jesus's acts, works and words were dying out or scattered about and the need arose to put down in writing some "official" records of what occurred, what was said and to a big extent what was meant by all of this. Much of this urgency arose from the "people in power" (orthodoxy) feeling challenged by the "heretical" schools/thinkers/believers.

  Thus gospels began to be created and there were by no means just four. In fact there may have been as many as a dozen plus. Several scholars say that there was one good prototype, which they call Quelle or Q for short which was a foundation for Mark's gospel, but this is more academic whimsy than provable fact.

  Mark is acknowledge as the first accepted gospel written. Than Matthew, John and finally Luke. Mathew and Luke follow the line of Mark closely (thus all three are referred to as synoptic) each with a different emphasis.

  John's version is unique and concentrates more on the divinity of Christ.

  But getting to the bottom line, what must be remembered about all of the Gospels is that they all contain various patches of missing "history" regarding Christ. IN large part because all the believers never thought it important to write or record everything because they thought that Jesus would be restoring the Kingdom of God pretty much immediately and certainly in their lifetime. It was only afterwards, at least 30-45 years later that some of these guys started thinking about writing it all down. So of course there is a lot left out both about what Jesus did and what he said during his short official "ministry", not too mention his actual life including childhood and roaring 20s :-)

  Even what we have is just a record of what is important. I mean we never get told about the time Jesus took a dump beside the road on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem but you can bet something like that happened too.

  John's comment then, although exaggerated of course, is his way of saying that what he has written is the important stuff but that he humbly admits that he could not record for the reader everything and with that there is also a touch of both regret and awe regarding his subject.

  -Eduardo