Toto

John 1:5

The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

vs

2 Cor 4:6

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," ...

I don't know. There's a lot of fairly obscure light imagery in the NT.

stephan huller

But if it isn't Genesis what is Paul citing?

Toto

Paul could be citing Genesis, in his own creative retelling.

stephan huller

The Peshitta uses ܕܢܚ which is the equivalent of anatole in 2 Cor 4:6. I think that's the original sense in both passages. That Christ will rise up out of the darkness of the resurrection.

The Syriac of 2 Cor 4:6 can be translated

For God, who commanded the light to rise out of darkness, hath risen in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ

The Syriac term is actually used in Mark 16:2 for the Greek ἀνατείλαντος. It emphasizes Christ as the anatole as elsewhere. This is an Alexandrian Jewish term for the messiah (see Philo).

I wonder whether the φαινει in John was originally there or whether the original sense of the passage was that the light (i.e. the messiah) 'rises' out of the darkness and the darkness overcomes it not - i.e. that it tells us that Jesus was 'with God' and will be resurrected by the end of the narrative.

Why was it changed? Even the Peshitta abandoned the term. Well, if you look at the context of John (assuming an Aramaic origin for the narrative) you start with

In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light (Christ) rises in the darkness, but the darkness has not overcome him.

If the resurrection narrative already is referenced by John 1:5 than the incarnation involves someone other than Jesus (whom the Marcionites held was wholly angelic):

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the Onlyborn [yahid], who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The common Hebrew term for Isaac is as the yahid and it is often translated in Greek agapetos (because Isaac as the onlyborn is 'beloved'). I have always thought this was the origin of the agape festival in Christianity. The celebration of the redemption of the one Jesus died for on the Cross (in order to set forth the process of incarnation cf. Stephen J Davis on this Coptic concept of 'continuing incarnation' through the Church).

stephan huller

But the Marcionites couldn't have thought that Paul was identifying his god with the God of Genesis. The context doesn't make sense either. In Genesis God divides or separates light and darkness. They are made to coexist with one another in this world and this is one of the reasons the Marcionites did not think the Creator was the highest god.

If we want to make sense of the Marcionite reading of 2 Cor 4:6 we have to assume it was the gospel he was citing.

The Marcionite gospel did contain readings from John otherwise how could Origen have said the Marcionites thought Paul was the Paraclete? The Paraclete references are ghettoized in our canon to the Gospel of John.

stephan huller

The Peshitta translation of the section in 2 Corinthians

For God, who spoke that light would rise out of the darkness, has dawned in our hearts that we would be enlightened with the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Yeshua The Messiah.

I think there is a summary here of what we call (the Syrians themselves who used the Diatessaron and the Marcionites would certainly disagree) John chapter 1 don't you? Oh and I noted that the text cited by Tertullian against Marcion drops the word 'Jesus' here emphasizing again that the Christ is someone else:

Now he did not observe how much this clause of the sentence made against him: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to the light of the knowledge in the face of Christ." [Against Marcion 5]

And here, I think, is checkmate Toto. For Origen makes clear that the reference is to the gospel in his variant (or paraphrase) in Against Celsus:

John also, who lived after him, said, “That which was in the Logos was life, and the life was the light of men;” which “true light lightens every man that comes into the world” (i.e., the true world, which is perceived by the understanding ), and makes him a light of the world: "For this light shone in our hearts, to give the light of the glorious Gospel of God in the face of Christ Jesus." [CC 6.5]

Not only does Origen connect the 'light' in the opening words of John with the 'light' of 2 Corinthians chapter 4, just look again at the whole context of the section in Paul

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Indeed if as I suspect the line which begins with "for we preach not ..." is one of many Catholic additions to break up the natural force of the passage it even becomes plainer that the gospel is being cited:

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

As I said I think that's checkmate. Origen the heretic must have known the original context. Even what is left of 2 Corinthians suggests the gospel is meant. It is amazing how many bad commentators on Paul there are out there. Oh, Marcion where art thou?

Got to sleep

Doug Shaver

Actually, that's not quite the entire argument. Presented in full, it would go something like this.

• Paul doesn't mention the gospels.
• If the gospels had been circulating in Paul's time, we should reasonably expect him to have mentioned them.
• Therefore Paul was written before the gospels.

Do you have any problem with the second premise?

Indeed, he would object. But why? Let's flesh it out like I did the other one.

• Acts doesn't mention Paul's letters.
• If Paul's letters had been circulating when Acts was written, we should reasonably expect the author to have mentioned them.
• Therefore Acts was written before Paul's letters.

Now, I don't actually know what Ehrman would think of the second premise here, but I see nothing all that compelling about it.

Toto

I can see a lot of problems. The gospels might have been circulating, but Paul didn't consider them authoritative, or they were published by an alternative sect, or. . .

I have seen it argued that the author of Acts must not have actually known Paul, because otherwise he would have mentioned that Paul wrote letters.

But I see it as compelling as the idea that if the gospels had been circulating in Paul's time, he would have mentioned them.

Steve Weiss

So, your position seems to be that given little, if any, evidence in support of the existence of a King David you are willing to assume that the biblical stories are true. Do, you also assume that Moses was an historical person? On what basis outside the bible? One is question begging when one assumes what one is required to prove. That someone must have been a king of Judea does not make a case for the biblical David being the correct one. There is scant evidence for the demarcation of the borders of Judea and other "nations" if one wants to use a modern term which does not properly apply to small tribal groupings. So, in the absence of solid evidence in favor of the existence of a King David, no case has been made or even attempted. Such vacuous claims fall into the category of the arbitrary.

One must ask one's self, what would be necessary and sufficient evidence to support the existence of a King David? Lots of written records kept by the tribe and by outsiders as well could be a starting point, though lots of stories about mythical people are readily available and do not prove the existence of legendary characters. A tomb with convincing markings containing a body that is DNA tested along with buried treasure and artifacts might advance one's claim, assuming that these artifacts could be properly dated and matched with biblical accounts. Coinage with the face of King David on it would be circumstantial but might be somewhat convincing to those who want to believe in this personage. In any case, the evidence that is both necessary and sufficient data to even get to the level of possibility does not exist. To go even futher to say that the existence of a King David is probable really stretches the imagination beyond credulity.

bacht

Well, there's no stele with Moses' name on it is there? Why couldn't we accept a provisional conclusion of David being an early tribal leader?