Bernard Muller

Ya Peter,
According to my research, and as documented on my website, the disciples (Peter included) never believed in their former guru as Son of God, Christ, Son of Man, Word, pre-existence and resurrection (generally) and Jesus in heaven. In other words, they were not the ones who started Christianity. Others did.

About GJohn now:
I think 1John was written before GJohn (any parts of it) (reasons are given at the bottom of my page:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/jnorig.shtml
1John was written 65-80 right after the Christians in a city in Asia Minor (likely Ephesus), who unconfortably coexisted in different groups (they had to tone down their Christian beliefs wherever there were differences) broke apart. See 1John 2:18-19 for clues.
According to 1John & GJohn, written later, the ones called antiChrists, appear to have Jewish Christians or Ebionites tendencies. Both groups rejected Jesus as the Son, more so as pre-existent. Ebionites then probably rejected Jesus as the Christ. They saw him as only a mortal prophet/apostle.
After the split, there was no reason to compromise, and the predominent Pauline/Apollosine group issued the manifesto 1John.
Then GMark got known. This book was not the answer required by 1John 1:1-5. So the author of 1John started to work on GJohn, taking in account GMark, and producing the original GJohn, about two thirds of the canonical one. I spelled it out , line by line on my aforementioned page.
Both works not only defended the faith of the pre-existent Word/Son of God group, but also try to attract those with Ebionites & Jewish Christians leanings, asking them to be "born again" (Jn3:3-21). Consequently, as I said already:
"One of the main theme of GJohn is to make Jesus the pre-existent Son of God, and very obviously. It represents Pauline/Apollosine Christianity to its fullest, contrary to the Synoptics, which are rather hesitant in that regard. It also tries to solve the problem associated with two Gods, the Father & the Son, which probably was a main reason for rejecting Jesus as the Son in John's community."
I frankly do not care how all of that fits with Price theories.
Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

Besides the pre-existence of Jesus, what connections do you see between Paul and GJohn?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Pre-existence is already a lot, more so because it does not appear in the Synoptics and a fair amount of NT books (such as 'James').
The Word, even if it is just spurted only once (In 1Cor).
GJohn is not shy about Jesus as the Son of God.
I mentioned also "Apollosine" (I think Apollos was the author of 'Hebrews'). Of course 1John & GJohn are even much closer of what goes in 'Hebrews' (more so its introduction) than whatever Paul wrote.
But GJohn depicts Jesus on earth as Paul describes Jesus in heaven, relative to stature & identity.
Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Hi Peter,
This is a more researched reply than the one I made earlier.
What follows come from one of my page. It is better presented there and you can have access to the passage in question by clicking: "http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/jnorig.shtml#jnhist
On top of the passage, I listed my reasons for dating 1John earlier than GJohn and argued 1John is not against Docetist (as commonly believed) but rather Christians leaning towards Ebionism & Jewish Christianity (with a touch of early Gnosticism).

>>A Christian community in a city of Asia Minor (likely Ephesus), who uncomfortably coexisted in different groups (toning down their Christian beliefs wherever there were differences!), split in different factions, hostile to each others:
1Jn2:18b-22 "... even now **many antichrists have come**, by which we know that it is the last hour. **They went out from us, but they were not of us**; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but **they went out** that they might be made manifest, that **none of them were of us**. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is **a liar** but he who **denies that Jesus is the Christ**? He is **antichrist** who **denies** the Father and **the Son**."

The "1John" group, very much into Pauline/Apollosine christology, was probably fighting off Christians with Jewish Christianity or/and Ebionistic tendencies. One of the leaders of these "thrown out" Christians was possibly Cerinthus, presented in later writings as a contemporary & foe of a disciple called John in Asia Minor. Cerinthus mixed early forms of Gnosticism with elements of Jewish Christianity & Ebionism: see here for more infos. Nothing is certain about his (initial) beliefs, but Cerinthus had **no pre-existent Son of God** but only a heavenly "spiritual" Christ (or the Holy Ghost) entering a mere mortal Jesus (as late as the baptism, seemingly rejecting "Jesus **Christ has come [was born] in the flesh**" 1Jn4:2) then depart back to heaven during (or before) the suffering.

Then later, GMark came into the community: it was not what "John" had in mind in order to support his claims from Jn1:1-4, previously quoted! So the writing of the gospel, inciting, among other things, to accept Jesus as the pre-existent Son/Word of God and equal to the Father (& in complete harmony with him, of course!). No acceptance, no salvation! Other Christians, coming from other groups, were invited to be "born again" (or else!):
Jn3:3-4 "... Most assuredly, I say to you, **unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God**. ..."How can a man be **born when he is old** ...""
Jn3:17-18 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. **He who believes in Him is not condemned**; but **he who does not believe is condemned already**, because he has **not believed in the name** of the only begotten Son of God."<<

So, the following quote is acceptable by me. BTW, I never said anything like the Johannine "community" was "making high christological claims for Jesus as a conservative trend of fulfilling the Pauline program", even if my first email on this thread was hasty.
The further reference to Thomassans is quite streched in my views, even if there are a few similarities between GJohn & GThomas. It seems to me any pretext is used to have the Thomassans on the scene, like Vinnie having them in Corinth during Paul's days.

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

I must object! There is no evidence that the authors of the Gospel of John had ever heard of this "Paul" guy. But there is clear evidence that the authors took more interest in this "Thomas" guy than most gospels--except another gospel, called the Gospel of Thomas--with the John gospel seeking to discredit the Thomas apostle on the very points (divinity and resurrection and future eschatology) that the Thomas Gospel hold so important, but in the opposite way, that is GThomas taught the non-divinity of Jesus and get-back-to-the-garden protology (no resurrection--sorry Doubting Tom!). It's like me writing a story where I show a guy named "Earl" eventually converts to a belief in the Lord Jesus in the face of the silence of Paul and the mystery religion milieu. Pretext? Get out of here!

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Are you saying "John" did not get his Christology from "apostles", like Paul, with its preexistent Son of God!
The same goes for GMark, GMatthew & GLuke: They never mentioned Paul. But it would very hard to squeeze him in, in view he was not around as an eyewitness. "Luke" did know, according to the sequel 'Acts', even if his/her gospel does no show it.


Agreed

I thought you made a good point here, so I reviewed my findings, not only about GThomas, but also about GJohn, more so its progressive composition with the associated changes/upgrading of christology/theology. Everything fit, and I am inclined now to think that there were Thomassans around in the 70's and "John" reacted to them (but GThomas was written later!). I already explained my reasons on (and updated) my website pages.

GThomas
I made a comment in the front and I also moved the dating of GThomas. From around 95 (which is solid in my mind, in view of the dependence on the synoptics) to about 120 (that's very fluid here). So I have a 15 years overlap with Vinnie!

The original GJohn, as written around 80
The first GJohn shared one common belief with GThomas: the true faithful does not die. That got suppressed by "John" later, but not by the Thomassans. This belief was started by Menander around that time, and was still popular during Justin's day.
Search for >Thomas< to see my comment on the one only occurrence of Thomas (no twin) here.

The additions to the gospel, in three main steps
'Thomas the twin' appears in the three steps, more so the 2nd one, 'the doubting Thomas'.
Again, Search for >Thomas< to see my comments

Justifications for the main 4 versions, V1, V2, V3 & V4
Outlay of the different versions with their links

Essentially, V1 was written after GMark was known.
V2 was written after GLuke was known.
V3 was written after 'Acts' was known.
V4 was written after the "beloved disciple" died.

Best Regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

That's what I propose. Even if Paul is totally authentic (there's only one preexistent co-creator verse in "authentic Paul" which contradicts the adoptionistic verse elsewhere), we have to contend with the multiplicity of ways in which Jesus movements honored Christ, including the move to make Christ into a man who came down from heaven. The idea of a man coming down from heaven was widespread in antiquity. It would have been invented by several people who wanted to distinguish their beliefs and increase the stature of a founder figure. That idea alone is not enough to establish a Pauline fingerprint in the text of John.

The lack of mention of "Paul" in John is just a starting point that opens the door. What allows us to walk through that door is that there is not enough cross-referencing between the Pauline Epistles and the Johannine Gospel in terms not only place and time but also intent, organization, langauge, and doctrine to necessitate reading one through the lens of the other. I am afraid that many people have followed the people of Lystra in making Paul a god on the landscape of early Christianity, a messenger Hermes who delivered to them all their ideas.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Ya, but Paul Christology was evolutionary.
On this page:
The beginning of Christianity
I showed the evolution in Paul's Christology, the influence of 'Hebrews' on him, his reluctance to "Son of God", which he accepted late. But he had to adopt all that because that became believed among Gentile Christians. Yes, Jesus as the Word, was simply something he mumbled once and probably did not like. Furthermore, he wrote that in order to correct the first verses of 'Hebrews' (which seem to take away God from most of the creation business). Paul did prefer the adoptionistic stance (and only 'Lord'), but had to change and he used "God sent his Son" in his last letters.

But the unhistoric humble, poor, crucified Jew, as described by Paul in tidbits becoming through some process, well explained in 'Hebrews' and parts of Paul's epistles, the preexistent Word/Son of God, was bound to leave a trail of different Christologies, from Ebionistic to 'Jesus is God', and many things in between.

I recall Paul used Jesus as the man from heaven to show what Christians themselves were supposed to become. So the man from heaven is just used for argumentation sake. Sure, if you look everywhere else, you are bound to find something similar. Religions and cults are fertile fields were everything has been postulated, from early on.

"John" was not in isolation, more so because he belongued to a clique (according to 1John), fighting off other Christians. He knew about other gospels, as I explained on my pages (& many scholars would agree with that). So not knowing about Paul's ideas and others would be impossible. Other authors knew about Paul, from 70 to 150, (like "Clement", I date 80) and a few wrote epistles in his name, such as 'Colossians', which you date 50-80, with its very high Pauline/Apollosine christology.

As I say, no gospel had any reason to have "Paul" in it, nor any no-Pauline epistle (except 2Peter). "Acts" had reasons to have "Paul" in it and it sure did!
I think you got a big argument from silence here. And why would GJohn cross-references Paul's epistles? Christianity was a wild game without rule: anyone called his own shots! And the other gospels are not close to Paul's boastings either. There are no preexistence in them, no Word (but that appear in GJohn!).

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

Before we go on, I'd like to examine the instance you speak of. Quote the passage where Paul calls Jesus "the Word" in something that approaches the Philonic or Johannine sense. This seems to be one of the very few arrows in your quiver.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bernard Muller

Here is the quote from 1Corinthians 8:6 Darby:
"yet to us [there is] one God, the Father, of whom all things, and *we* for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, **by whom [are] all things**, and *we* by him."
That's what I called mumbling. And the word 'Word' does not appear here.

Let's compare with Hebrews 1:1-2 Darby:
"God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, 2 at the end of these days has spoken to us in [the person of the] Son, whom he has established heir of all things, **by whom also he made the worlds**;"
The word 'Word' does not appear here either, but in the next verse:
Heb1:3 "... upholding all things by **the word of his power**, having made [by himself] the purification of sins, set himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high,"

Let's look at Philo of Alexandria:
"And even if there be not as yet one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to **his first-born word**, the eldest of his angel, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called the authority and the name of God and **the Word**, and *man according to God's image* ..." (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XXVIII)

"And this same **Word** is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And **the Word** rejoices in the gift ..." (Who is the heir of divine things, ch. XLII)

"the most ancient **Word** of the living God ... he will never take the mitre off from his head, he will never lay aside the kingly diadem, the symbol of an authority which is not absolute, but only that of a viceroy, but which is nevertheless an object of admiration." (On flight and finding, ch. XX)

"For we say the high priest is not a man, but is **the word** of God ..." (On flight and finding, ch. XX)

"Now **the image of God is the Word**, by which all the world was made" (The special Laws I, ch. XVI)

"... the second deity, who is **the Word** of the supreme Being" (Questions and answers on Genesis, II, 62)

I got more about Philo's quotes on my page:
The beginning of Christianity
Here, also, I show that the author of 'Hebrews' is very much inspired by Philo of Alexandria's works, in many ways.
And the author of 'Hebrews' is Apollos of Alexandria, an "associate" of Paul.
And 'Hebrews' was written before Paul's mumbling about the "Word".
And there are a lot of cross-references between Paul's epistles and 'Hebrews'.

From 'Colossians', written before GJohn (but not by Paul):
1:15-20 Darby
"15 who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation;
16 **because by him were created all things**, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: **all things have been created by him and for him**.
17 And *he* is before all, and all things subsist together by him.
18 And *he* is the head of the body, the assembly; who is [the] beginning, firstborn from among the dead, that *he* might have the first place in all things:
19 for in him all the fulness [of the Godhead] was pleased to dwell,
20 and by him to reconcile all things to itself, having made peace by the blood of his cross -- by him, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens."
The Christology here is probably higher than anywhere else. Strong allusion to Jesus as 'Word', but 'Word' is not spelled out.

Let's look at GJohn 1:1-3 Darby:
"1 In [the] beginning was the **Word**, and the **Word** was with God, and the **Word** was God.
2 *He* was in the beginning with God.
3 All things received being **through him**, and without him not one [thing] received being which has received being."
'Word' is in evidence here but does not appear in 1John, which I argued being written before GJohn.

Actually 'Word' appears only in GJohn in the whole NT (with Heb1:3 possibly), even if the expression "word of God" is numerous, but never clearly related to the "Word".

Best regards, Bernard