blackthorne

Hello fellow Infidels. I was just recently greeted by a door-to-door Bible salesmen (well, saleswomen to be exact) who quoted John 14:6 to me ("I am the way, the truth, and the light"), and I got to "thinking" about (other than bodily harm) the motive behind this verse and reasons for why it should never be used to validate Christianity ever again. As Koester notes (concerning the nature of John's anti-doceticism):

"The Gnosticizing understanding of salvation that is presented by the pre-Johannine interpretation of the sayings is refuted by the author of the gospel (John) by lodging the claim to divine descent with Jesus alone. The "I am" formula, so typical of this gospel, serves primarily this purpose (that is, as an anti-Gnostic devise)."

Several questions however:
Where is the evidence for gnostic christianity around the time of John's compilation? Or rather, is there any explicit evidence in John that suggests the anti-gnostic devices Koester speaks of, are exactly that (anti-gnostic devices)?
Why would Herocleon, a gnostic, who appears to have been the first to publically accept the gospel of John, have used this gospel to support gnostic theology when some of the verses in John are explicitly anti-gnostic? Is there any chance John 14:6 is another example of the orthodox corruption of scripture?

I know Bart Erhman deals with this topic in his book, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", so if anyone has it and could tell me if he cites anti-docetic corruptions of scripture, I would much appreciate it.

Toto

I have a copy of the book. The index does not list John 14:6, which does not sound to me like it would be a big stumbling block to a Docetist. (You just have to treat it as metaphor.)

One chapter in the book (out of 5 - 20% of the book) is entitled "Anti-Docetic Corruptions of Scripture." Glancing through it, most of the examples are from Luke.

Maybe you should get your own copy:

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament

PS - Welcome to the Boards!

NOGO

("I am the way, the truth, and the light")

Who is the "I"?

After rereading GJohn several times I simply do not know how anybody can claim that the "I" here is Jesus.

In GJohn the "I" is the word of God which descended upon Jesus and resurrected him after his death.

In GJohn Jesus only claims to be the vehicle through which the Spirit of God speaks.

Even in Acts this is reflected as in
Acts 10:38
"You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

Jesus was the first man to benefit from God`s gift.

Later all Christians received the same Spirit of God as in
Acts 2:33
Jesus was taken up to sit at the right side of God, and he was given the Holy Spirit, just as the Father had promised. Jesus is also the one who has given the Spirit to us, and that is what you are now seeing and hearing.

All this sounds very Gnostic to me.

blackthorne

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Toto- Yea, I ordered it about a week ago after reading some of the reviews off of amazon.com (is it any good anyways?). I was hoping it would have a few instances of anti-docetic corruption in conjunction with the "I am" formula Koester speaks of within the Gospel of John (specifically, chapter 8, verses 12 through 36). I realize the obvious objection is to interpret it metaphorically, but I'm a "bit" more interested in the facts, well...only because the fundamentalists who use are too, so yea.

Thanks though. To be honest however, I'm more interested in the validity of Koester's "speculation". Doesn't it presuppose gnostic Christianity's existence during the latter half of the first century, around the time John was written? Or is that presupposition agreed among the scholarly consensus? What I'm trying to ascertain is whether or not the anti-docetic material in John was a conscious choice to combat the gnostic theology, or whether or not gnostic scripture (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas) was itself a means of combatting Johannine theology (or something along those lines. ). Sorry if these are stupid questions. I've only read so much on early Christianity, but it seems the more I read the less I know.

CX

In her new book, Beyond Belief: The Gospel of Thomas, Elaine Pagels makes an excellent case that GJn was a direct response to the community of Gnostic Xians that created GThom. Further we know from the Ante Nicene fathers that gnosticism was a pervasive influence in early Xianity. The line you refer to may be a corruption but you'd have to look up the information for details. Part of the reason that GJn was initially not universally accepted is just because of the Gnostic tendancy to interpret GJn in just that way. Irenaeus spends considerable effort refuting the idea that GJn promotes a gnostic view of Jesus.

Geoff Hudson

I would suggest that an original Jewish document was edited so that it now appears as a response to gnostic ideas that were probably of no concern when the original was written. The gnostic element is fairly obvious.


(6)[Jesus] {John} answered, "[I am] {The Spirit is}
[the way and the truth and the life]
{God}.

No-one [comes to the Father] {sees God} except through [me] him.

No Jew in a Jewish community was ever going to proclaim "I am the way, the truth and the life" - unless he wanted a very quick death. Its a pity Pagels and her ilk ignore the Jewish backgrounds of documents they claim to know the origins of.

Geoff