Polycarp and the Original Canon of John [Part Two]

It is the seventh day of our original 'Festival of Polycarp' and I am nowhere finished examining the significance of the teacher of Irenaeus and the Valentinians. I might have to extend the analysis past Monday. If people find this really boring, let me know. I am utterly enthralled by Polycarp as you know and always have been. I lack proper perspective on all of this, really.

Just a quick note to examine Irenaeus' reports of the Johannine connection with the Valentinians. It can be inferred through Irenaeus' references in Book One that the Valentinians had a canon made up of a Gospel 'according to John' and letters of Paul.

They then represent the Saviour as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;" and again, "Taking up the cross follow me;" but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word." They also maintain that John indicated the same thing when he said, "The fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge the floor, and will gather the wheat into His garner; but the chaff He will burn with fire unquenchable." By this declaration He set forth the faculty of Horos. For that fan they explain to be the cross (Stauros), which consumes, no doubt, all material objects, as fire does chaff, but it purifies all them that are saved, as a fan does wheat. Moreover, they affirm that the Apostle Paul himself made mention of this cross in the following words: "The doctrine of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God."(10) And again: "God forbid that I should glory in anything save in the cross of Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world." [AH i. 3.5]

That the Valentinian's possessed a VARIANT gospel of John is clear from what follows. Notice again the pairing of 'Paul' and 'John':

They declare also that Paul has referred to the conjunctions within the Pleroma, showing them forth by means of one; for, when writing of the conjugal union in this life, he expressed himself thus: "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church."

Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,--that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. By him the Word was produced, and in him the whole substance of the AEons, to which the Word himself afterwards imparted form. Since, therefore, he treats of the first origin of things, he rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. And he expresses himself thus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God." Having first of all distinguished these three--God, the Beginning, and the Word--he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For "the beginning" is in the Father, and of the Father, while "the Word" is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, "In the beginning was the Word," for He was in the Son; "and the Word was with God," for He was the beginning; "and the Word was God," of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. "The same was in the beginning with God"--this clause discloses the order of production. "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made;" for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the AEons that came into existence after Him. But "what was made in Him," says John, "is life." Here again he indicated conjunction; for all things, he said, were made by Him, but in Him was life. This, then, which is in Him, is more closely connected with Him than those things which were simply made by Him, for it exists along with Him, and is developed by Him. When, again, he adds, "And the life was the light of men," while thus mentioning Anthropos, he indicated also Ecclesia by that one expression, in order that, by using only one name, he might disclose their fellowship with one another, in virtue of their conjunction. For Anthropos and Ecclesia spring from Logos and Zoe. Moreover, he styled life (Zoe) the light of men, because they are enlightened by her, that is, formed and made manifest. This also Paul declares in these words: "For whatsoever doth make manifest is light." Since, therefore, Zoe manifested and begat both Anthropos and Ecclesia, she is termed their light. Thus, then, did John by these words reveal both other things and the second Tetrad, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. And still further, he also indicated the first Tetrad. For, in discoursing of the Saviour and declaring that all things beyond the Pleroma received form from Him, he says that He is the fruit of the entire Pleroma. For he styles Him a "light which shineth in darkness, and which was not comprehended" by it, inasmuch as, when He imparted form to all those things which had their origin from passion, He was not known by it. He also styles Him Son, and Aletheia, and Zoe, and the "Word made flesh, whose glory," he says, "we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten (given to Him by the Father), full of grace and truth." But what John really does say is this: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Thus, then, does he [according to them] distinctly set forth the first Tetrad, when he speaks of the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia. In this way, too, does John tell of the first Ogdoad, and that which is the mother of all the AEons. For he mentions the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia. Such are the views of Ptolemaeus [AH i.8.4,5]

The one variant reading of John in the introduction is followed by a few others in the course of the books which follow. The point now clearly is that the Valentinians not only held that John wrote a variant gospel which as we have already shown mixed new material within the shared framework of the original Alexandrian gospel of Mark (I think this is the context of To Theodore's reference to the 'mixed gospel' of Asia Minor).

Of course Irenaeus' purpose in attacking the Valentinians is to refute their claims that their gnostic teachings were passed through a chain of transmission from the very lips of the evangelist himself. As we read in what immediately follows:

You see, my friend, the method which these men employ to deceive themselves, while they abuse the Scriptures by endeavouring to support their own system out of them. For this reason, I have brought forward their modes of expressing themselves, that thus thou mightest understand the deceitfulness of their procedure, and the wickedness of their error. For, in the first place, if it had been John's intention to set forth that Ogdoad above, he would surely have preserved the order of its production, and would doubtless have placed the primary Tetrad first as being, according to them, most venerable and would then have annexed the second, that, by the sequence of the names, the order of the Ogdoad might be exhibited, and not after so long an interval, as if forgetful for the moment and then again calling the matter to mind, he, last of all, made mention of the primary Tetrad. In the next place, if he had meant to indicate their conjunctions, he certainly would not have omitted the name of Ecclesia; while, with respect to the other conjunctions, he either would have been satisfied with the mention of the male [AEons] (since the others [like Ecclesia] might be understood), so as to preserve a uniformity throughout; or if he enumerated the conjunctions of the rest, he would also have announced the spouse of Anthropos, and would not have left us to find out her name by divination.

The fallacy, then, of this exposition is manifest. For when John, proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, by whom all things were made, declares that this was the Son of God, this the Only-begotten, this the Former of all things, this the true Light who enlighteneth every man this the Creator of the world, this He that came to His own, this He that became flesh and dwelt among us,--these men, by a plausible kind of exposition, perverting these statements, maintain that there was another Monogenes, according to production, whom they also style Arche. They also maintain that there was another Saviour, and another Logos, the son of Monogenes, and another Christ produced for the re-establishment of the Pleroma. Thus it is that, wresting from the truth every one of the expressions which have been cited, and taking a bad advantage of the names, they have transferred them to their own system; so that, according to them, in all these terms John makes no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I just want the reader to stop for a moment and begin to see that the EXACT SAME scenario now exists for 'John' that we see established for 'Mark' through the letter to Theodore. Not only does Clement understand his Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark to be 'gnostic' but the evangelist inseminated the true gospel with 'secret knowledge' which leads to direct knowledge of the heavenly Ogndoad (something I have already demonstrated with the first addition to Secret Mark with respect to an seven day preparation for initiation at the 'going out' of the seventh day into the eighth).

The point is that I STRONGLY SUSPECT - nay, I am absolutely sure - that it was Irenaeus who separated 'Mark' from 'John' to make them two different evangelists. Originally there were two parallel gospels one associated with Alexandria the other with Polycarp, and where both superficially resembled the Arabic Diatessaron. I think that before Irenaeus there were deep divisions in the Church between those - like Clement - who denied that the gospel of the Asian Church was 'really written by Mark.' At the same time, the Asian Church ridiculed the Alexandrian for having a gospel which referenced 'naked man and naked man' etc.

To this end we can start to reconstruct part of the logic of Irenaeus the organization of the four texts that made up the Catholic gospel. If we go back to the famous statement in the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called we can now immediately see the context of the first and last gospels:

So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.[AH iii.11.7]

I think the readers can now begin to see that I read this reference to the connection between Valentinus and the Gospel according to John as essentially confirming that in Irenaeus' alteration of the longer - Diatessaron-like - gospel of John originally promulgated by Polycarp into the familiar canonical text, Irenaeus altered information to 'help disprove' these heretical claims. Already Trobisch proves that our John was edited from an original text.

Yet look a little closer at what starts the discussion in the chapter - a clear idea that the current Gospel of John was developed as a specific refutation of a Gospel of John associated with 'Cerinthus':

John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that "knowledge" falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impassible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma [ibid iii.11.1]

There is no doubt in my mind that what Irenaeus is now responding to contemporary reports that the Gospel according to John was not actually written by John but a heretic called 'Cerinthus.' We have dealt with the origins of this tradition in previous posts. The important thing now again is that it is 'Cerinthus' who is blamed for the gnostic doctrine (the Nicolatians are explicitly identified in the Apocalypse of John which is a separate literary tradition).

Throughout this Third Book Irenaeus emphasizes that Cerinthus IS NOT the author of the Gospel of John, only its corrupter. But if we stop and think for a moment, the implication is of course that the argument of Gaius of Rome MUST HAVE EXISTED prior to Irenaeus' formulation. In other words, that FIRST was the claim that the Gospel of John was a fake, not written by the evangelist AND THEN Irenaeus' claim that Cerinthus was in fact the corrupter of the authentic Gospel of John.

Of course we are not yet at Clement's identification of a Carpocrates who corrupted the Gospel of Mark in Alexandria, but we are certainly approaching what we might call a parallel 'shadow' of that original understanding, albeit under a different name. At least PART of the explanation must have to do with 'Cerinthus' being a name or nickname which develops from Rome while 'Carpocrates' is Alexandrian in origin. It would be best to leave the development of this argument for another time ...