Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

[davidmartin]

GakuseiDon i did not know about those
some of the gnostical writings don't either
From memory the gospel of mary and the dialogue of the saviour don't and probably there's some more of the more obviously Christianical ones that don't either
the gospel of phillip says "'Jesus' is a hidden name, "Christ" is a revealed name"

[Ben C. Smith]

the gospel of phillip says "'Jesus' is a hidden name, "Christ" is a revealed name"

That gospel seems also to give its reason for this distinction:

Gospel of Philip 20 apud NH codex 2, page 104, lines 3b-13a: 20 “Jesus” is a hidden name; “Christ” is a revealed name. For this reason “Jesus” is not particular to any language; rather he is always called by the name “Jesus,” while, as for “Christ”, in Syriac it is “Messiah,” in Greek “Christ.” Certainly all the others have it according to their own language. “The Nazarene” is he who reveals what is hidden.

Christ you translate. Jesus, though, you transliterate. The point seems to be to arrive at the punchline about "the Nazarene," based on the Hebrew etymology of NṢR.

[MrMacSon]

the gospel of phillip says "'Jesus' is a hidden name, "Christ" is a revealed name"

That gospel seems also to give its reason for this distinction:

Gospel of Philip 20 apud NH codex 2, page 104, lines 3b-13a: 20 “Jesus” is a hidden name; “Christ” is a revealed name. For this reason “Jesus” is not particular to any language; rather he is always called by the name “Jesus,” while, as for “Christ”, in Syriac it is “Messiah,” in Greek “Christ.” Certainly all the others have it according to their own language. “The Nazarene” is he who reveals what is hidden.

Christ you translate. Jesus, though, you transliterate. The point seems to be to arrive at the punchline about "the Nazarene," based on the Hebrew etymology of NṢR.

Later, -

The apostles who were before us had these names for him: "Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah", that is, "Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ". The last name is "Christ", the first is "Jesus", that in the middle is "the Nazarene". "Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured". "Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption". "Nazara" is "the Truth". "The Nazarene" then, is "the Truth". "Christ" [...] has been measured. "The Nazarene" and "Jesus" are they who have been measured.

---

The line immediately after the section Ben cited is

Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die. As God lives, he would [...].

[Irish1975]

A thought about the relative chronology of 1 John and GJohn—

The Gospel of John can be read as one big YES to the interconnected questions in 1 John 2: 22 and 4:3,

Was Jesus the Christ?
Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

For that reason alone it seems much more natural that the epistle would have been written first, and the Gospel second. The latter answers the former. By contrast, it would be very weird if the Johannine circle had developed and implemented GJohn as scripture, and then in response to it people started wondering “Is Jesus really the Christ?” “Did he really come in the flesh?”

This sequence conforms to the pattern found elsewhere in the OT and NT:

The prophets are earlier than the writers of the Pentateuch.
Paul’s epistles are earlier than the synoptics.

Long narratives with many allegorical features (eg, Genesis) are late-in-the-day reflections upon a historical context that has long past, whereas an epistle or an OT prophecy like Jeremiah is a fairly recent reaction to an immediate crisis. The crisis in Galatians, involving Paul’s break with the Torah-observant branches of the Church of God, shows up later in how the pillars are depicted in GMark allegorically.

In the same way, it seems to me most plausible that 1 John—which is fiercely passionate, but not particularly coherent or well-ordered—was a close-to-the-origingal-crisis scripture, whereas GJohn was composed over many years, many revisions, and possibly many hands, but coming out of that original crisis.

[Ben C. Smith]

...it seems much more natural that the epistle would have been written first, and the Gospel second. The latter answers the former.

We agree on this one. I too belong to the minority consisting of those who think the epistles came first. I have given another reason to think so elsewhere. Essentially, a datum from the epistles is presumed in the gospel, and there is no other known text early enough which would give the information:

John 14.16-17: 16 “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete/Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you.”

1 John 2.1-2: 1 My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have a Paraclete/Helper with the Father: Jesus Christ the righteous, 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Notice that Jesus says that another Paraclete/Helper will be sent after he is gone, implying that he himself is a Paraclete/Helper. But this information (that Jesus is a Paraclete) is not found in the gospel; nor is it found in any of the synoptics or other gospels. Rather, it is found in 1 John, in which Jesus Christ is the only Paraclete mentioned. The gospel, in other words, presumes previous knowledge of something found in one of the epistles.

[Secret Alias]

Except the Comforter was originally understood to come AFTER Jesus in the Islamic manner and the orthodox "corrected" that because Irenaeus didn't like the idea of "another Christ."

[Irish1975]

...it seems much more natural that the epistle would have been written first, and the Gospel second. The latter answers the former.

We agree on this one. I too belong to the minority consisting of those who think the epistles came first. I have given another reason to think so elsewhere. Essentially, a datum from the epistles is presumed in the gospel, and there is no other known text early enough which would give the information:

John 14.16-17: 16 “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete/Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you.”

1 John 2.1-2: 1 My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have a Paraclete/Helper with the Father: Jesus Christ the righteous, 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Notice that Jesus says that another Paraclete/Helper will be sent after he is gone, implying that he himself is a Paraclete/Helper. But this information (that Jesus is a Paraclete) is not found in the gospel; nor is it found in any of the synoptics or other gospels. Rather, it is found in 1 John, in which Jesus Christ is the only Paraclete mentioned. The gospel, in other words, presumes previous knowledge of something found in one of the epistles.

That makes sense.

I just read through a recent article Did the Johannine Community Exist? by Hugo Mendez, and was not impressed with his account of why the Gospel must be earlier. He seems to think that the author of 1 John is presenting himself as an eyewitness to Jesus in essentially the same manner as the GJohn puts forward the beloved disciple, and I don’t see any basis for that.

Are there any good arguments for Gospel priority?

[Ben C. Smith]

I just read through a recent article Did the Johannine Community Exist? by Hugo Mendez, and was not impressed with his account of why the Gospel must be earlier. He seems to think that the author of 1 John is presenting himself as an eyewitness to Jesus in essentially the same manner as the GJohn puts forward the beloved disciple, and I don’t see any basis for that.

Are there any good arguments for Gospel priority?

I have never seen one that worked for me. That list by Raymond Brown, who believes the gospel came first, seems to me to point, if anything, in the opposite direction. There are no slam dunk arguments that I am aware of in either direction, unfortunately, but the epistles coming first just seems like the better of the two options to me.

[andrewcriddle]

I just read through a recent article Did the Johannine Community Exist? by Hugo Mendez, and was not impressed with his account of why the Gospel must be earlier. He seems to think that the author of 1 John is presenting himself as an eyewitness to Jesus in essentially the same manner as the GJohn puts forward the beloved disciple, and I don’t see any basis for that.

Are there any good arguments for Gospel priority?

I have never seen one that worked for me. That list by Raymond Brown, who believes the gospel came first, seems to me to point, if anything, in the opposite direction. There are no slam dunk arguments that I am aware of in either direction, unfortunately, but the epistles coming first just seems like the better of the two options to me.

IIUC Raymond Brown believed proto-John was earlier than the epistles and was common ground between the author of the epistles and his opponents. He accepted that canonical John was later than the epistles.

Andrew Criddle

[Irish1975]

I just read through a recent article Did the Johannine Community Exist? by Hugo Mendez, and was not impressed with his account of why the Gospel must be earlier. He seems to think that the author of 1 John is presenting himself as an eyewitness to Jesus in essentially the same manner as the GJohn puts forward the beloved disciple, and I don’t see any basis for that.

Are there any good arguments for Gospel priority?

I have never seen one that worked for me. That list by Raymond Brown, who believes the gospel came first, seems to me to point, if anything, in the opposite direction. There are no slam dunk arguments that I am aware of in either direction, unfortunately, but the epistles coming first just seems like the better of the two options to me.

IIUC Raymond Brown believed proto-John was earlier than the epistles and was common ground between the author of the epistles and his opponents. He accepted that canonical John was later than the epistles.

Andrew Criddle

What did Brown consider to be proto-John, and is it something he postulated independently of this specific issue, i.e. the Gospel/Epistle priority question?