Articles Page

"John" - A Gosple to Silence the Gnostics

According to the fairy tale, the apostle John lived a remarkable life. At what must have been a very tender age he fell in first with John the Baptist and, soon after, with Jesus himself. Renamed ‘Boanerges’ (‘son of thunder’) by the godman (Mark 3:17), the dying Christ apparently made him guardian of the Blessed Virgin no less. (What happened to John’s natural mother, one wonders?) Taking his new charge seriously, John re-settled Mary in Ephesus and here faced-down a challenge from the local high priest over a poisoned cup.

It was also in Ephesus that John fled the baths, less the presence of the heretic Cerinthus should ‘cause the roof to fall’ (or so said Clement of Alexandria!). John became the most active of the apostles, next to Peter, organizing the early church in Palestine and throughout Asia Minor. Sometime around the age of eighty three (‘the last year of Domitian's reign’ i.e. 96 A.D.), he was exiled to the Roman penal colony of Patmos.

Uniquely in the history of the Roman judicial system, John survived immersion in burning oil. His jailers must have been so surprised that they provided him with writing materials and he wrote a best-selling 50,000 word horror story (‘Apocalypse’) about the imminent end of the world.Several years later, at a not inconsiderable age, this ‘unlearned ex-fisherman’, now a bishop, wrote the beautiful, ‘poetic’ gospel in best Greek that bears his name. He seems to have died peacefully at his retirement home in Ephesus.

What a guy!

In art he is represented by several emblems – he deserves them – among them an eagle and a cooking pot. Then again, maybe all of this is nonsense.

Few people believe that the tormented author of Revelations can possibly be the same John credited with the Gospel and Epistles. The two books are utterly different, one full of apocalyptic hatred, the other a work of theology. Thus many Christians believe there were at least two Johns, an early and a late. Was even one of them an apostle called John accredited with a gospel? Says the Catholic Encyclopedia:

'The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church.'

Why does almost everyone but a committed Catholic believe that the fourth gospel is a fake?

Consider the evidence:

Points of detail at odds with the synoptics:

– the duration of Christ's public ministry is extended by John from one year to over three years, during which time John recounts three visits by Jesus to Jerusalem, not just one; within this extended time frame, John moves the so-called ‘purification of the temple’, which the synoptists put at the end of the Christ's ministry, to the beginning.
– John does not agree with the others on the day of crucifixion – surely an occasion of the utmost import? John says Christ held his last supper with his apostles on Thursday; according to the synoptists, the last supper was on Friday.

– While the synoptics focus on the anticipated ‘Kingdom of God’ (and Christ is ‘Son of Man’), John centres on Christ himself, as ‘Son of God’ and eternal king, and upon the evangelical goal of convincing others that Christ was the Messiah – sentiments more in keeping with an established church.
– the advanced theology of the fourth gospel is difficult to reconcile with the homely simplicity of the synoptics; this is allegedly an old fisherman’s tale, afterall.
– the long discourses and colloquies of Jesus – remembered so clearly after more than sixty years?
– the dogmatic character of John's narrative sits oddly alongside the moral discourses of Jesus in the synoptics.

Oddities:

– John's Gospel is the work of a trained mind who wrote good Greek with some semitizing; but Acts 4:13 says that John was illiterate.
– John makes little reference to Galilee, which is scarcely what we would expect from a native of the province, especially since Galilee (supposedly) was the centre of Christ’s ministry. Nor does he mention at all his brother, James.
– John makes frequent and unnecessary references to the ‘the Jews,’ as if they were a hostile group, e.g. ‘as I said unto the Jews’ (John 13.33) said by Jesus (a Jew) to a group of Jews. He was one of them, was he not? John's knowledge of Judaism is also tainted. Critics cite John 18:13 in this regard (as if there were an annual priest):
‘and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.’
– The author of this work would hardly refer to himself as ‘the disciple Jesus loved.’

Recovering Reality

If John’s Gospel is only in part a novel re-telling of the Jesus fable, what, then, is it really about? Essentially, it is mid-second century theology written to combat rival, ‘heretical’ theologies. The authors sought not to re-write a Jesus history – they already had several versions of that! – but to define and dogmatise religious ideas and theological speculations and thus call a halt to the free-for-all theorising. This was theology from the anti-theoreticians, from the ecclesiasta.
John emphasizes, in opposition to the heretics, the divine status of Christ, rejecting out of hand the popular notion that Jesus was merely a man on whom the Holy Spirit had descended. In consequence, the authors suppress entirely the sequence where John baptised Jesus and have the baptist further demean himself:

‘He must increase, but I must decrease. He who comes from above is above all;’ (John 3.30,31)

The whole narrative of the fourth gospel centres round Christ as the divine ‘Word.’ To gather up authority, it even begins with a borrowing from Genesis: ‘In the beginning…’ Again and again, he repeats the message: the divine Word, divine Love, the fullness of his Grace and Truth, and so on. Unlike the pithy, ambiguous ‘sayings’ in the synoptics, in John , whole discourses are chronicled. These include the famous ‘I ams’ borrowed from the Old Testament (self-referrals by God himself): I am the Redeemer; I am the Light of the World; I am the Way; I am the True Vine; I am the Bread of Life; I am the Lamb, etc, etc. Jesus is elevated to nothing less than eternal co-creator of the universe – beat that, heretic!

As evidence of this astounding claim, the writers chronicle many of the miracles by which Christ revealed himself, adding a new one, the raising of Lazarus, not found in the synoptics. The purpose was to establish divinity.

Again in opposition to heretics, who tended to reject the (pagan-like) significance of baptism, wine, special bread etc., or regarded them as mere symbols for a subjective psychological state, John stresses these ceremonial aspects (beloved by the hierarchy). Chapters three, six and fifteen all stress rebirth in ‘water and spirit’, partaking of the ‘bread of heaven’, of the ‘true vine,’ etc. There is a lot of reliance on lengthy discourses which conveniently rebut the claims of heretics.

Origins

If then the fourth gospel is an attack upon heretical ideas, who were the heretics it was directed against?
One group were the ‘chiliasts’ who desparately hoped for divine retribution. Remote from real power, they did not share in aspirations for earthly authority. In the mid-second century, in the Asian province of Phrygia, Montanus (and followers Prisca and Maximilla) were preaching John’s ‘Apocalypse’ would descend to earth in Phrygia. Prophesies were collected and in circulation, which they propogated as the word of the holy spirit. Tertullian in Carthage agreed.
Another group were the ‘Judaisers’, not yet willing to sever ties with Judaism, still less castigate Jews as Christ-killers. These were the Ebionites and Elchasites, who held that Jesus was a man of normal birth in whom the spirit of Christ had briefly dwelt. They rejected Paul as a charlatan and had their own scripture: Gospel of the Nazareans, Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites.

Irenaeus, the defender of the hierarchy, attacked these advocates of ‘emotional ecstasies which rejected tradition’. ‘The Age of Miracles and revelation has ended now the last of apostles dead,’ declared Irenaeus. He opposed the so-called heretics with a policy of ‘word and sacrament’ – in other words, a defined gospel and a programme of church-organised rituals.

When?

The earliest of the extant manuscripts of John do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century. As to the date of composition we possess no certain historical information. The ‘gnostic language’ suggests a late date for John, as does the highly developed theology. As we shall see, early Christian writers made no reference to such a gospel, later writers did.

Who commented on John’s gospel? John Chrysostom (Bishop of Constantinople, 398 - 403) in his Homilies ; Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) in his Tractates ; the extant portions of the commentaries of Origen and Cyril. Dionysius of Alexandria (bishop from 247 - 265) knew of John’s gospel but thought it clearly had a different hand from the writer of the Apocalypse. The pagan philosopher Celsus in his ‘True Discourse’ (about 178 AD) based some of his statements on passages of the fourth gospel and Heracleon, a follower of Valentinius, composed a commentary on the fourth gospel about 160 A.D. But a generation earlier, Papias (late first century - c. 130 A.D.), though mentioning an apostle called John, says nothing of any gospel. Speaking of this Greek Bishop, Eusebius says (Hist. eccl., III, xxxix, 17) his work included passages taken from a ‘first epistle’ of John but nothing from a gospel.

The likelihood, then, is that John went through its various re-writes in the second half of the second century. During this period, the anti-Montanists actually attributed John's Gospel to Cerinthus., an Egyptian ‘heretic’. Attribution to a heretic was certainly the fastest way for them to discredit a false gospel! The Montanists deduced their doctrine of the ‘paraclete’ mainly from John 15 and 16.

We come to Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (died about 202), he who first identified and named the four gospels, and advocate of ecclesiastical totalitarianism (otherwise known as Holy Mother Church. He cites in his writings at least one hundred verses from the fourth gospel. It is worth quoting at length the famous document that demonised his opponents – Against All Heresies – (Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall. Christian Classics Ethereal Library), emphasis added:

Of these the first of all is Simon Magus…After him Menander, his disciple (likewise a magician…Afterwards, again, followed Saturninus: Christ had not existed in a bodily substance, and had endured a quasi-passion in a phantasmal shape merely; that a resurrection of the flesh there will by no means be.

Afterwards broke out the heretic Basilides…The resurrection of the flesh he strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies.
To these are added those heretics likewise who are called Ophites: Christ, moreover, existed not in substance of flesh: salvation of the flesh is not to be hoped for at all.
Moreover, also, there has broken out another heresy also, which is called that of the Cainites…opposing Christ's passion; and thus, through the passion of Christ, there might be no possibility of the salvation of mankind…

But, again, the heresy has started forth which is called that of the Sethites...Of Christ, moreover, their sentiments are such that they call Him merely Seth…
Carpocrates, futhermore, introduced the following sect…Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary, but was generated - a mere human being - of the seed of Joseph…His soul alone was received in heaven as having been more firm and hardy than all others: whence he would infer, retaining only the salvation of souls, that there are no resurrections of the body.

After him brake out the heretic Cerinthus, teaching similarly. For he, too, says that the world was originated by those angels; and sets forth Christ as born of the seed of Joseph, contending that He was merely human, without divinity; affirming also that the Law was given by angels; representing the God of the Jews as not the Lord, but an angel.

His successor was Ebion, not agreeing with Cerinthus in every point; in that he affirms the world to have been made by God, not by angels; and because it is written, "No disciple above his master, nor servant above his lord, " sets forth likewise the law as binding, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.

Valentinus the heretic, moreover, introduced many fables…Christ, moreover, was sent by that First-Father who is Bythus. He, moreover, was not in the substance of our flesh; but, bringing down from heaven some spiritual body or other, passed through the Virgin Mary as water through a pipe, neither receiving nor borrowing aught thence. The resurrection of our present flesh he denies, but (maintains that) of some sister-flesh.

After these there were not wanting a Marcus and a Colarbasus, composing a novel heresy…they affirm that Christ was not in the substance of flesh; they say there is to be no resurrection of the flesh.

To this is added one Cerdo. He introduces two first causes, that is, two Gods-one good, the other cruel: the good being the superior; the latter, the cruel one, being the creator of the world maintains that Christ who came was the Son of the superior God; affirms that He was not in the substance of flesh; states Him to have been only in a phantasmal shape, to have not really suffered, but undergone a quasipassion, and not to have been born of a virgin, nay, really not to have been born at all. A resurrection of the soul merely does he approve, denying that of the body.

After him emerged a disciple of his, one Marcion by name, a native of Pontus, son of a bishop, excommunicated because of a rape committed on a certain virgin…his assertions are identical with those of the former heretic before him.

Close on their heels follows Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, who after lapsing, into his own carnality, was severed from Marcion…states Christ descended from the upper regions, that in the course of His descent He wove together for Himself a starry and airy flesh; and, in His resurrection, restored, in the course of His ascent, to the several individual elements…and thus-the several parts of His body dispersed-He reinstated in heaven His spirit only. This man denies the resurrection of the flesh...He teaches the salvation of souls alone.

Thus we see that Irenaeus ‘bangs on’ about an ‘error’ held by so many Christians, that only a spirit and not the body is resurrected, some thinking Jesus was merely human, others that he was purely divine. His main targets are the Valentinians, active in Ephesus when the Gospel of John saw the light of day.

Valentinus – a grand master of esoteric mysteries – had been born in Phrebonis in upper Egypt about 100 AD. Educated in Alexandria by Theudas (a disciple of Paul), Valentinus claimed to possess a secret wisdom – suitable only for the ‘spiritually mature’ – handed down by Paul to his inner circle. To strengthen his hand, Valentinus also claimed to have had a vision of the risen Christ. Armed with such credentials, around the year 120, he began a career as Christian zealot, working out a cosmological fantasy involving multiple male/female pairs of ‘Aeons’ – such as ‘Will and Wisdom’ – all subordinate to the Supreme Being. ‘Christ and the Spirit’ were another such pair. Despite the intrinsic elitism of Valentinus – he held that pagans were irredemable, ‘psychics’ (ordinary Christians) capable of redemption, and ‘pneumatics’ (like himself!) without need for redemption – he built up a following in Egypt and Syria and, in 136 AD, Valentinus tried his hand in Rome.

He remained in the city for at least a decade and in 143 AD was involved in a power struggle for the position of bishop. His major work – The Gospel of Truth – like the fourth gospel, is a work of theology. Ignorance of the Father, said Valentinus, causes agitation and fear, which grow into a ‘fog’ of error ('a female emanation'!) In error, we commit sin. Knowledge of the Father is salvation; we are eventually restored to gnosis through Christ. This torturous nonsense nonetheless animated the initiates of this popular Christian cult. In response, the ecclesiasta wrote a rebuttal to the theology of Valentinus: the gospel of John.

In short, John’s gospel was drafted in the 160s as a defining dogma. Having targeted the heresy of Valentinus and kindred groups, it was necessary to backdate 'John' to a more appropriate ‘authorship.’ What better than John 1, the demented author of Revelations? Officially, the target of ‘John’s’ writing were first century heretics – the Ebionites, the Nicolaites, and in particular Cerinthus.

Amusingly there was a last minute redraft: John 21. The last two verses of the twentieth chapter indicate clearly indeed that the author intended to terminate his work here:

‘Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name ‘ (John 20, 30-31)

Is John using the royal we here (and also referring to himself as ‘he’!) - or is this the voice of the gaggle of second century clerics that wrote the whole fantasy?

Kenneth Humphreys