Polycarp and the Original Canon of John [Part One]

Polycarp Week is almost over.  I hope you had as much fun as I did.  We have just two more days to get through a lot of material.  There were times where I thought that I would lose all my readership.  After all Polycarp is an acquired taste (sort of like pickled herring I guess).  Nevertheless the readership of this blog has bounced back to some of its highest levels over the last three days.  This tells me that it was a good idea to initiate 'Polycarp Week.'

I have already promised Dimitri in Corinth that next week will be 'Alexandria Week' (even though I have far less expertise on the subject).   I have been literally thinking or writing about Polycarp every day of my adult life.  The only thing I have given more thought to is whether it really counts as adultery if you haven't had sex with your spouse for a prolonged period of time.  But that is another issue, for another time at perhaps another blog.

So now, after all our preliminary work, we are heading back to some basic questions regarding the development of the canon, and in particular 'according to John's place in that canon (as well as the 'mixed gospel' of the Carpocratians of Asia Minor).

If the reader remembers our examination of Trobisch's work, he, in no uncertain terms says that the existing canonical gospel of 'according to John' was heavily redacted by the final editor of the canon.  I wonder whether the original Gospel of John looked more like the gospel text common to the author(s) of 1 Clement and the Epistle to the Philippians (before the readings of the latter were made to 'agree' with the synoptic texts by Irenaeus of Lyons).

Indeed we are left with an even more basic question when you really think about it – can the existence of this original Gospel claimed to be written by John (or 'ur-John' for short) be proven?  It is a most difficult thing to satisfy the objections of religious scholars who only want to prove that everything Daddy and Mommy taught them about the Bible is true. Nevertheless in my mind it is not our objective to win over everyone to these ideas.  We need only ask questions that no one ever bothers to answer.

The question that Trobisch and everyone else wants to avoid is - how did the Maphrain Church, the second to fourth century Syrian Christian tradition we may tentatively associate with both Polycarp AND Ephrem Syrus end up with a canon built around a single gospel, the Diatessaron (I have often wondered whether 'Ephrem' may well be a fourth century 'updating' of texts associated with Polycarp, but that is another argument for another time).

In my mind any theory of gospel origins which doesn’t begin with the Diatesseron is a colossal waste of time. I believe we have shown clear evidence that most early Christian sects were “one gospel” traditions before Irenaeus.  Again, as Trobisch notes even the early Catholics understood there to be one gospel made up of four.

I have tentatively put forward the idea that this 'gospel of four' never saw the light of day initially.  It was reserved for the senior members of the Church.  I tend to think that the only text than most people ever saw was the Diatessaron.  This must have been especially true in Syria and the eastern part of the Empire down through to the fifth century.

Yet none of these arguments helps prove the existence of a Diatesseron-like text specifically identified as a "gospel according to John."

The way we get there I think is to look at the OTHER witness to Polycarp - Florinus of Rome.  Hill has developed some of this territory for us.  Of course, for Hill as for other myopic scholars, Irenaeus is characterized as 'the true disciple' of Polycarp and Florinus, one who fell away.

I am certain it was the other way around.  In other words, Florinus got his 'Valentinian' (or 'Palatine' i.e. 'of the royal court') from Polycarp. Irenaeus invented Polycarp's orthodoxy.  But that's just me.

The important thing that we have to start realizing is that a case can be made that the Valentinians as a group were connected to the Diatessaron or a Diatessaron-like gospel in the name of John.  I will develop this further in tomorrow's post.  For the moment I need only cite Connolly’s work with the Acts of John to provide us with our first big clue. After discovering that the Johannine Acts must have been originally composed in Syriac, Connolly goes on to demonstrate that the original author employed a Diatesseron-like gospel for his scriptural citations.

I know that the Acts of John are generally ignored by most people. Most of us don’t care or believe in its contents. Nevertheless it is impossible to believe that a narrative about one of the most popular gospel writers could have used some else’s gospel for its citation of scripture. When Connolly demonstrates that 'Leucius' used a Diatesseron-like gospel, we can see a similar pattern spread all across the known 'Valentinians' of the period.

Take the example of Heracleon (d. 180 A.D.) for a moment. He is identified by Clement as the “most famous” Valentinian commentator on the Gospel of John. It is baffling enough to see that all the earliest commentators on John were Valentinians. In Heracleon’s case he is known to have written one study of the gospel and not surprisingly it is called the “Commentary on John.”

However scholars like to pretend that Heracleon’s gospel of John is our surviving text but this is surely quite impossible. It is once again certainly Diatesseron-like. As Davis notes we from Origen’s critical examination of “Heracleon's commentary on John [that it] also includes quotations from and allusions to passages in Matthew.” That’s odd, don’t you think! It seems as if Origen tries to focus on those Johannine passages which reflect our surviving “shorter” Catholic gospel but every once and a while John seems to have also written synoptic passages. .

Indeed we begin to see even clear that Heracleon’s Commentary on John didn’t just deal with “familiar Johannine passages” this because as Hill notes, Origen’s predecessor Clement “only seems to know Heracleon’s exegesis of passages in Luke” (Strom 4. 9. 73 -5; Ecl. Proph. 25). There is no evidence to suggest that Heracleon wrote a separate commentary on Luke or any other Catholic gospel. So there can be only one answer. Heracleon’s Commentary was based on a “gospel of John” which must have been a Diatesseron-like gospel.

I don’t have the foggiest idea why scholars want to believe that these “heretics” possessed “separate gospel” texts like our much later Catholic tradition. Everything about the earlier period points to the fact that every sect possessed their own one “super gospel” which contained all the true stories and sayings about Jesus.

So when scholars identify the Valentinian Gospel of Truth as using material from “Matthew and John” it was probably from a Diatesseron-like gospel in the name of John. Similarly when Wilson says of the author of the Valentinian Gospel of Philip that “[o]f the four Gospels, the author's preference is clearly for Matthew and John, although there is at least one distinct allusion to Luke; there does not appear to be any evidence for knowledge of Mark” we can say again – it was probably the same Diatesseron-like gospel.

I have no idea why I have to prove that these authors didn’t use our quaternion. It sometimes seems like New Testament scholarship works on the principle of “guilty until proven innocent.” I on the other hand always assume that my taste in women, food or leisure activities might not be shared by all my contemporaries.  Why is it then we assume that the predilection for employing “many gospels” is now the status quo for all Christian sects when we see the exact opposite phenomenon at work among the various heresies?

To this end I think it worthwhile to cite the example of Ptolemy, the earliest known commentator on John Valentinian or otherwise. Irenaeus cites the opening lines of his commentary as referencing the evangelist in the following manner - “John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origins of all things …”

So it is clear that Ptolemy knew and loved the 'Gospel of John.  With that in mind I would like to my readers to take note of his other known reference to “the Gospel of John” in the Epistle to Flora where we hear Ptolemy write: that:

one cannot impute the Law to the injustice of the opposite, God, for it is opposed to injustice. Such persons do not comprehend what was said by the Savior. For a house or city divided against itself cannot stand declared our Savior. Furthermore, the apostle says that creation of the world is due to him, for Everything was made through him and apart from him nothing was made. Thus he takes away in advance the baseless wisdom of the false accusers, and shows that the creation is not due to a God who corrupts but to the one who is just and hates evil.

I wonder if I will be accused of reading too much into the passage when I notice that Ptolemy understands the same apostle to have written both citations of scripture.  Who cares!  These people are so dense, it drives to fits of distraction!  They can't even read what is on the page in front of them!!!!

Of course “John” is unnamed in this short epistle. Yet we have already seen that Ptolemy knew and used the gospel of John as his preferred text. Now we come across yet another Valentinian who seems – at least according to a superficial examination of his work – to cite scriptural references from the gospels of Matthew and John from our canon. Yet I ask my readers to look carefully at what Ptolemy is actually saying in between these two references.

Ptolemy clearly understands that his gospel of John once again contained not only the familiar material from our John 1:3 but also that John wrote the statement about “a house or city divided from itself cannot stand.” The Savior says these words in “the gospel” and then “furthermore” we see “the [same] apostle say that creation of the world is due to him” and then the opening lines of John are cited. I tell my readers that the argument wouldn’t make any sense whatsoever if two different gospel writers were meant here.

For if Ptolemy were citing one thing said by the evangelist “Matthew” which Marcionites long argued proved that the god of heaven was different than that of the god of this world how could Matthew’s intent be proven by citing John? These are two different authors for god’s sake and there were countless dozen “gospels” floating around in early Christian antiquity. How could what one evangelist wrote assist in proving the orthodoxy of another?

Do scholars believe that even the Valentians’ were 'quaternionists'? That’s an even taller order to prove! When Irenaeus makes his case for the fourfold gospel it is important to note that he never cites apostolic precedent or even the fact that his master Polycarp adhered to such a canon. So how could Ptolemy hold fast to an argument that “the same Holy Spirit filled the various evangelists”? He didn’t because he only used one gospel of John which was a Diatesseron-like gospel.

Here is another example.  Quispel notes that sayings in the Acts of Archelaus are drawn from the Diatessaron.  Yet when you read who the author of the Acts of Archelaus says is the author of this community's gospel, there are very strong hints that his name is 'John.' Here are the clues.

Not only does the author identify "the holy John" as "the greatest of the evangelists, also tells us of the giving and diffusing of grace for grace; for he indicates, indeed, that we have received the law of Moses out of the fullness of Christ, and he means that for that one grace this other grace has been made perfect in us through Jesus Christ." [Acts Arch 45]

There is a consistent pattern of use the term 'the evangelist' to refer to John:

For if that is possible, then the evil nature will be proved to be stronger than God. Furthermore, how can that being, seeing that he is pure and total darkness, surprise the light and apprehend it, while the evangelist gives us the testimony that the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not? [Acts Arch 24]

and again:

whereas only those who have received Him, and yet receive Him, have obtained power to become the sons of God. For the evangelist has not said all have obtained that power; neither, on the other hand, however, has he put any limit on the time. But this is his expression: As many as received Him. [ibid 28]

There is also a clear heretical formulation throughout the Acts of Archelaus that Paul was the Paraclete which Origen notes was common to Marcionites and Valentinians.

If my hypothesis is correct Ptolemy not only understands “John” to have composed a Diatesseron-like gospel but also witnesses this gospels relationship to “Paul” which we intimated was Polycarp’s original understanding. In other words, “Paul” was understood to be the architect of the Church while the composition of his gospel was left up to “John” the “high priest” of the Christian tradition.