Is John an Apocryphal Gospel?
October 22nd, 2007 by 
Tony
This week’s New Testament Apocrypha class focused on John and his Opponents. Taking a page from Gregory Riley and Helmut Koester, we looked at the possibility that characters in John are intended to represent other Christian groups with which John’s community was in conflict. Doubting Thomas, therefore, represents the group behind the Gospel of Thomas (which too seems to “doubt” physical resurrection) and Mary Magdalene represents the group behind the Gospel of Mary (which seems to portray Mary as a visionary). I’m not entirely convinced by the Riley-Koester argument but I do think it’s worth considering (everything is “worth considering,” especially when I don’t feel compelled to take a stand).
One student commented on how so much early Christian literature is devoted to conflict between Christian groups. And it’s a good point. Christian proselytizing seems to have been primarily an oral discipline, while texts were for apologetic or polemical purposes.
Our orthodoxy/heresy discussion focused on two aspects of John. The first is John’s sources. As many scholars maintain, John was constructed in layers with the primary layer being a “Signs Gospel.” Like Q, this text no longer exists and is not included in the NT and therefore is non-canonical, but it is preserved in a sense through John’s use of it, which makes it canonical. Another source for John is the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery. This story is not original to the text, and even shows up in the Gospel of Luke (and, incidentally, according to a note in one manuscript of John, it ultimately derives from a “Gospel of Thomas”). Technically, this is a non-canonical story—text critics should argue for its removal from John (like Romans 16:24, which can be tricky to find in many Bibles)—but it is a treasured story so it remains canonical.
The other aspect of John related to orthodoxy and heresy deals with John’s relationship to the Synoptic Gospels. I had the students read an article by D. Moody Smith (“The Problem of John and the Synoptics”). In the article, Smith discusses the assumptions made about apocryphal gospels—they are late, derivative of canonical texts, and contain bizarre embroideries and expansions of canonical texts. By such a definition, John looks like an apocryphal gospel. Matthew and Luke seem to consider Mark “scriptural”—it is clearly an authority for them and they follow its structure and style. But John does not. Also John is not featured as prominently as the Synoptics in the Apostolic Fathers, and its esteem among non-proto-orthodox groups made orthodox writers suspicious (the Muratorian Canon features a lengthy justification for its inclusion in the list; Hippolytus wrote a defense of John against Gaius who wanted it eliminated because it disagreed with the Synoptics). In essence, Smith is saying that John is apocryphal because it does not follow Mark, but its inclusion in the NT makes it canonical.
Our discussions of Thomas and Mary were fairly standard fare (overview of sources, theories of origin, etc.). We focused more on the use of the characters of Mary and Thomas and possible parallels between the texts and John than on each text’s particular theology or christology (I have to hold some things in reserve for next semester’s Gnosticism class). I like to spend time on both liberal and conservative arguments for the value and utility of these texts. This time we looked at Craig Evans’ statements (from Fabricating Jesus) about the composition of Gospel of Thomas; my summary was very quick and may have been unclear, but it can be read in my post about Evans’ book HERE.
Update on Secret Mark: if you want to continue to follow the discussion of the authenticity of Secret Mark, click HERE for Peter Jeffery’s extremely polite response to Scott Brown’s lengthy review of The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled.
Posted in Gospel of Mary, Fabricating Jesus, 2007 NTA Course, Orthodoxy and Heresy, Gospel of Thomas | 
| Permalink
October 24th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I remembered from Sunday School how the teachers would always emphasize how each Gospel focused on different aspects of Jesus’ life in order to paint a complete picture of his ministry. John was always referred to as the ’spiritual’ Gospel, so it’s an extremely interesting argument to say it’s an example of a canonized apocryphal writing (crazy paradox).
Ultimately, it comes down to what people are comfortable with - the Gospel of John emphasized the same qualities as the Synoptics, but in a radically different way. This made it acceptable to be included in the canon, but in a way to always destine it as the black sheep of the Gospels. Other apocryphal writings were ‘too controversial’ or ‘too different’ for inclusion in the Bible, but John (if it really can be considered apocryphal) sneaked by since it didn’t rock the boat too much.
People do not tend to like change, especially when it comes to the way they look at things.
On a separate note, are there any other examples like Romans 16:24 (of non-canonical stories sneaking into everyday belief)?
Cheers,
Joshua
October 26th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Thanks for the comments Joshua. There are a few other verses or parts of verses that have become “canonical”. I’ll try to compile a list for next class (several of them are in Pauline texts).
October 26th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Some scholars have argued that the Gospel of John should be considered an apocryphal text. John, after all, has been influenced by Gnosticism according to some scholars. Rudolf Bultmann, for instance, in “The Gospel of John: A Commentary,” argues that John is mainly influenced by Gnosticism. He maintains that John’s “incarnation of the redeemer” is a Gnostic idea that was “taken over at a very early stage by Christianity” (p. 26). Bultmann’s argument could potentially work if one dates John to the 2nd century since John could have been influenced by Gnostic texts which also date to the 2nd century. Most scholars, however, agree that John was written in the late first century. John could, therefore, not have based his writings on Gnostic texts. Martin Hengel, in “The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion,” argues that Gnosticism was “first visible as a spiritual movement at the end of the first century at the earliest and only developed in the second century” (p. 34). John, however, could have drawn material from Gnostic oral traditions circulating in the late first century. Joseph Ratzinger, in “Jesus of Narzareth,” argues that the Gospel of John could not be Gnostic because it was written in the first century and “rests on extraordinarily precise knowledge of times and places” and thus can only come from “excellent firsthand knowledge of Palestine at the time of Jesus” (p. 219-221). One could argue that the followers of Gnosticism also drew much of their material from “excellent firsthand knowledge of Palestine” during the time of Jesus. Ratzinger, however, points out that the Gospel “thinks and argues” in a distinctly Old Testament kind of way and is “deeply rooted in the Judaism of Jesus’ time” (p. 221). Furthermore, Hengel argues that the language of John is not Gnostic but “steeped in the language of Jewish piety” (The Johannine Question, p.113). Dr. Chartrand-Burke,are we going to examine the arguably Gnostic elements in John in your Gnosticism course?
I do not find the Riley-Koester argument to be particularly stimulating. The Gospel of John, like Mark, Luke, and Matthew, may have some apologetic or polemical elements, but for the most part, it was constructed for proselytising purposes by conveying the message of Jesus Christ for a particular community. I agree with Professor Chartrand-Burke’s comment that “Christian proselytising seems to have been primarily an oral discipline,” for the fact that most people living in the Roman Empire at the time were illiterate. Evangelism had to be in the oral form because only baptized Christians were allowed to attend church services (at least in the case of proto-orthodox circles). This evangelism, however, was deeply rooted in the message conveyed in Christian texts. I would also agree with Professor Chartrand-Burke that Christian literature was used for “apologetic or polemical purposes,” but I would not conclude that it was primarily used for this purpose. At least by the second century, Christian literature, including the Gospels, was principally used for Christian worship (at least in proto-orthodox circles). The texts would be read to worshipers by the literate leaders of the churches.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Thanks for the comments Matt. Yes, I will discuss Gnostic or proto-Gnostic elements in John in the Gnosticism course. I am tempted to date Gnosticism earlier than conservative scholars would and see material in the NT reflecting its ideas or groups holding to its ideas (though I would not say John is Gnostic). As for your comment on the gospels as polemic: I might be persuaded to say that they were primarily composed for that reason (or that was one of their principle goals; this doesn’t preclude other reasons for including the material they do–e.g., if you want to portray Jesus as non-subversive, you kinda have to provide biographical details)but they developed into other uses once they became sacred literature.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Hey Professor,
I was reading Bock’s book and came across some Justin Martyr quotes particularly on p. 126. He quotes Martyr calling Jesus “Word”. When I read that I remembered that you said something along the lines of Justin not knowing of John but Justin’s student did; which I think came sometime in your lecture at the bullet point below:
• “Justin Martyr (wrote 1 and 2 Apology ca. 150-160 CE); refers to “gospels” and “memoirs of the apostles” but does not consider them scripture; appears to know Matthew, Mark and Luke, perhaps in the form of a harmony; also championed the continued use of Jewish scripture”
Now if he called Jesus Word in 2 Apology 7, does that come from the gospel of John, 1 John, or a tradition that John used?
Sorry that Im writing pretty late.
Thank you.