Gospel of John

[Mithrae]

I'm interested in folk's views on the subject. A few points worth discussing:

1 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel was written in the late 1st century CE, some 60ish years after Jesus' death.
- - - the earliest manuscript fragments date from as early as 130CE, if memory serves; the work has strong anti-gnostic themes, and early Christian tradition holds that it was written in opposition to the teaching of Cerinthus (late 1st century)

2 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel had the same author as the first epistle of John
- - - the similarities in style, themes (love, anti-gnostic themes etc.) and specific phraseology are obvious even to the untrained reader

3 - 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 and John 19:35 are the only distinct eyewitness claims regarding Jesus' life in the bible (besides 2 Peter, widely held to be a 2nd century work)
- - - of particular interest, note the contrast between 19:35 and the appended section in 21:24, which uses third person

4 - While someone present during Jesus' ministry would be in his 80s by the time the gospel was written, there are numerous examples of such comparatively long lives in the ancient world (several notable Greek philosophers, for example)

5 - In addition to the specific eyewitness claims, some verses such as John 5:2 imply a sense of familiarity with Jerusalem which one wouldn't particularly expect from the author of Greek work, unless the author was in fact a Jew



Interested in everyone's thoughts

[Mithrae]

#1. It's blatant that John has been tweaked and modified. Most particularly the ending, Chapter 21 is an obvious tack on. It most likely originally ended between 20:10-18. The Doubting Thomas story is a clear and blatant later addition which contradicts not only itself but other gospels. (Thomas would not have received the Holy Spirit if this spurious text is true)

There are two types of reasons for believing that a text has been modified; manuscript evidence, and incongruity in the text itself. The story of the adulteress, for example, is known to be a later addtion because of manuscript evidence; the earlier manuscripts don't have it. John 21 is known to be a later addition because of incongruity in the text itself: 20:30-31 reads as a closing word to the book, implying that it was the original ending, while ch.21 itself implies it was added after the beloved disciple's death (21:22-23) and refers to the author/disciple in a different manner than the main gospel (21:24 vs. 19:35).

The problem with your view above is that it loses the incongruity found in the original closing words of John (20:30-31), and claims earlier verses as a later addition based on interpretation and theology. That doesn't make your view false, but you would have to further explain in literary terms how/why it doesn't sit well as part of the original gospel. I would suggest that the other references to Thomas in the gospel (14:5 and especially 11:16) do indeed suggest quite a down-to-earth character which fits those closing passages quite well.

#2. The Story of the Adulteress, 7:58-8:11 is clear and undeniable proof that John has been tampered with. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, corrupted as they are, bear witness to this. So we have multiple evidence that someone took this Gospel of John and revamped it.

We have evidence that shortly after the author/disciple's death, a follower added the final chapter to somewhat off-set the disappointment of his death, to confirm that he'd written the gospel and to lend support to Petrine leadership of the church now that all the apostles were gone. I don't think that would count as 'tampering' or 'revamping.' We also have evidence that, much later, someone added the story about the adulteress. Whether that's significant to your later comments is another question.

#3. Iraneus was a wicked heretic, cursed be his legacy. He even made up lies like John fleeing from bathhouses when he encountered Cerinthus.

#4. We have no idea what Cerinthus actually believed except what his enemies stated about him, and his beliefs are nothing at all "Gnostic" in the late-dark-medieval sense, but in the proto-Jewish-Christian sense. We don't even know if he truly denied the Virgin Birth.

Irenaeus' story about the bath-house came from Polycarp, and there's no evidence that it's a lie. I agree that we can't be sure how accurately Irenaeus and Caius recorded his doctrines.

#5. Certinthus's later disciples held a tradition that Cerinthus actually wrote the original John, and then the modifiers, who we have seen have had a definite hand in John's development, claimed it to be by John for their own purposes, like how writings of Ignatius and Paul were forged.

As above, I don't think the addition of chapter 21 after the disciple/author's death could be considered tampering per se, and the considerably later addition in John 8 probably isn't relevant. I do think that the addition of chapter 21 would make no sense if Cerinthus had written the gospel. Moreover the information we have about people attributing the work to Cerinthus is late, coming from Epiphanius (c. 390CE); while the belief he condemns obviously existed before his writing, we don't know how much earlier it existed.

There is evidence of the gospel's use in gnostic circles in the 2nd century:
By Heracleon c. 170CE
By the 'Peratae,' mentioned by Hippolytus c. 210-230CE
By the Valentinians as described by Irenaeus c. 180CE
However according to Irenaeus the Valentinians acknowledged John as the author:

• 5. 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...

Similarly, Heracleon attributes the gospel to a disciple of Jesus:

• The words, No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known, were spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple.

So it would seem that the tradition of Cerinthean authorship for the gospel probably began after the 2nd century, long after it would have any value for our discussion. And indeed, if we believe that the quotations by Origen of Heracleon and Irenaeus of the Valentinian text are reliable, they provide two additional sources of mid/late 2nd century evidence confirming the gospel's authorship.

Thanks for your input though - it's given me a motive to learn more about these gnostic beliefs - and I look forward to your reply

[Shermana]

And how much earlier than 180ish A.D. (Iraneus time) do we even hear of the gospel of John being mentioned? How do we know Polycarp was a real disciple of John? The Egerton Gospel Fragments bear a striking similarity in many ways to the Synoptics AND John (despite the insistence of many) and may represent some lost parts. Many parts of John clearly are not in sync, but I'm not even familiar enough with all of them, but there are many subtle ones that show obvious evidence that changes were made over the years. In a similar way, I discus the Gospel of Matthew's devolution from its original form, his "Gospel to the Hebrews".

I do not take a stance on whether John actually wrote it, but I know there's a lost "Gospel of Cerinthus" and I have reason to suspect power-monger Iraeneus may have taken Cerinthus's history and rewrote it as Yohannan's, including even the Epistles, as Cerinthus was a Jewish-Christian and Lawless Iraeneus was definitely not of the Jerusalem Church sort. I have reason to suspect the charges against Cerinthus may be forged, but they may be accurate. Marcion's accusers were mostly accurate in his heresies. I could be completely mistaken in this regard but I am assured that the John we know today is not 100% the original and has tack ons and disclusions.

As for the Doubting Thomas thing, it's a clear later addition and if it was the case, Thomas would not be present when Yashua breathed the Spirit upon the 11 Disciples. It is as much a tack on as Chapter 21, I'll get a site that discusses the full details of the incosistencies and scholarship on John.

"And he did so many things that if they were written all the world couldn't fit it"

This is a preposterous statement and a clear happily-ever-after-sort of addition. You couldn't fit the state of rhode island with a tome of every single person's histories even if they all lived 100 years and did an encylopedia's worth of acts with no stacking.

[Mithrae]

And how much earlier than 180ish A.D. (Iraneus time) do we even hear of the gospel of John being mentioned?

Justin Martyr, who lived in Ephesus c. 132 CE, quotes John as an authoritative gospel (Dialogue with Trypho, CV and 1st Apology, LXI). The p52 fragment (c. 125CE) and p90 (c. 150-200CE) are both from the gospel of John. And as mentioned above, Heracleon's commentary on John is dated by some as early as 150-170CE and quotes extensively from the text.

How do we know Polycarp was a real disciple of John? The Egerton Gospel Fragments bear a striking similarity in many ways to the Synoptics AND John (despite the insistence of many) and may represent some lost parts. Many parts of John clearly are not in sync, but I'm not even familiar enough with all of them, but there are many subtle ones that show obvious evidence that changes were made over the years. In a similar way, I discus the Gospel of Matthew's devolution from its original form, his "Gospel to the Hebrews".

The bit in bold doesn't seem very consistent; surely they're either subtle or they're obvious? There's certainly cases throughout the NT where a word or a phrase has been changed by design or by mistake, usually not greatly altering the meaning of the text. But if there's no manuscript evidence for it, we should bear in mind that we're merely supposing changes to the text based on interpretation. In some cases (eg. John 21) supposed alterations or additions are based on fairly clear delineations or inconsistencies in the text itself, and are accepted as likely by virtually all scholars. In other cases, where proposed changes are based on 'subtle' distinctions in the text, we should be more cautious.

I do not take a stance on whether John actually wrote it, but I know there's a lost "Gospel of Cerinthus" and I have reason to suspect power-monger Iraeneus may have taken Cerinthus's history and rewrote it as Yohannan's, including even the Epistles, as Cerinthus was a Jewish-Christian and Lawless Iraeneus was definitely not of the Jerusalem Church sort.

How do you know there's a lost gospel of Cerinthus? Is there any mention of it before 390CE by Epiphanius?

I have reason to suspect the charges against Cerinthus may be forged, but they may be accurate. Marcion's accusers were mostly accurate in his heresies. I could be completely mistaken in this regard but I am assured that the John we know today is not 100% the original and has tack ons and disclusions.

Some scholars suggest that, though not in the manner you propose. They argue that there was a Johannine 'school' at Ephesus, which produced the gospel and later revised it (and wrote 1 John). To my mind, such a theory suffers from basing too much on speculation and too little on the available evidence. If it's true that John 21:22-23 was written shortly after the disciple's death - and again, I see no other plausible explanation! - then we have to take 21:24 seriously. And if the disciple "wrote these things," the preceding gospel, it's hard to imagine that any drastic revisions were made by the Johannine community so soon after his death.

That doesn't mean it's impossible, but any genuine enquiry should attempt to start from what is relatively clear and proceed from there, not propose various revisions based largely on speculation and thus conclude that the 'original' work was written by Cerinthus or the Johannine community.

As for the Doubting Thomas thing, it's a clear later addition and if it was the case, Thomas would not be present when Yashua breathed the Spirit upon the 11 Disciples. It is as much a tack on as Chapter 21, I'll get a site that discusses the full details of the incosistencies and scholarship on John.

I can see your point here regarding Thomas not receiving the Spirit (more important as a literary discrepancy than theological) and it's certainly intriguing - I'd not come across it before. I wonder though; if it were the case that the original author intended to portray such a scene ("Blessed are those who believe without seeing" and all that), how else would we expect him to write it? His closing words, regarding the book's purpose in encouraging belief, sits better with the Thomas story than if he'd put the Spirit-breathing afterwards.

That's just a theory off the top of my head, but it illustrates the point that speculation can take us in virtually any direction, and should only be taken so far. However I'll look forward to your site; you've certainly provided some interesting food for thought so far.

[Student]

Justin Martyr, who lived in Ephesus c. 132 CE, quotes John as an authoritative gospel (Dialogue with Trypho, CV and 1st Apology, LXI). The p52 fragment (c. 125CE) and p90 (c. 150-200CE) are both from the gospel of John. And as mentioned above, Heracleon's commentary on John is dated by some as early as 150-170CE and quotes extensively from the text.

The problem with using Justin Martyr as evidence for the early composition of John is that he [Justin] makes no specific reference to a Gospel written by John, nor does he clearly quote from the fourth gospel. At best the evidence shows that Justin and the author of John shared certain themes and ideas in common.

Furthermore, assigning a date of 125CE to P52, is, to say the least, overly specific. Roberts was far less precise when it came to dating P52: "On the whole, we may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which P.Ryl. Gk 457 was most probably written." (An Unpublished Fragment, 16).

On the whole, with some confidence, most probably! Not exactly the unequivocal statement of certainty some biblical scholars would have us believe.

Roberts acknowledged that palaeography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those, such as P52, that were written in a literary hand: Any exact dating of book hands is, of course, out of the question; (An Unpublished Fragment, 13)

As for Heracleons commentary, the earliest reference to it [and the only text in which it survives] is in the extant parts of Oregons commentary on John c.230CE. Iraeneus makes no mention of the commentary which suggests that by 180CE either it was not in existence or it had not gained sufficiently wide a circulation to come to his attention.

All in all, the earliest clear evidence for the existence of the gospel is provided by Irenaeus c.180CE.(Adversus Haereses 3.1.1).

[Shermana]

Some quotes on the subject regarding what was alleged about Cerinthus....

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_an ... Chapter_28


As you can see by the Footnotes, the accusations themselves were contradictory, and his idea of the Logos as the Foreman of Creation is no different than Philo's explanation of the 2nd Temple concept of Logos.

Because Cerinthus believes in the 1000 year millenial reign there will be marriage, and eating and drinking, look at how Iraneus goes out of his way to describe him.

Fascinating.

[Cathar1950]

Justin Martyr, who lived in Ephesus c. 132 CE, quotes John as an authoritative gospel (Dialogue with Trypho, CV and 1st Apology, LXI). The p52 fragment (c. 125CE) and p90 (c. 150-200CE) are both from the gospel of John. And as mentioned above, Heracleon's commentary on John is dated by some as early as 150-170CE and quotes extensively from the text.

The problem with using Justin Martyr as evidence for the early composition of John is that he [Justin] makes no specific reference to a Gospel written by John, nor does he clearly quote from the fourth gospel. At best the evidence shows that Justin and the author of John shared certain themes and ideas in common.

Furthermore, assigning a date of 125CE to P52, is, to say the least, overly specific. Roberts was far less precise when it came to dating P52: "On the whole, we may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which P.Ryl. Gk 457 was most probably written." (An Unpublished Fragment, 16).

On the whole, with some confidence, most probably! Not exactly the unequivocal statement of certainty some biblical scholars would have us believe.

Roberts acknowledged that palaeography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those, such as P52, that were written in a literary hand: Any exact dating of book hands is, of course, out of the question; (An Unpublished Fragment, 13)

As for Heracleons commentary, the earliest reference to it [and the only text in which it survives] is in the extant parts of Oregons commentary on John c.230CE. Iraeneus makes no mention of the commentary which suggests that by 180CE either it was not in existence or it had not gained sufficiently wide a circulation to come to his attention.

All in all, the earliest clear evidence for the existence of the gospel is provided by Irenaeus c.180CE.(Adversus Haereses 3.1.1).

Of course it is this group of people that were using the Gospel of John and it was later student of Irenaeus that become the later bases for what is to become orthodox Christianity and its use of the Gospel often found as the scriptural bases for their doctrines which where used by later Greek and Latin fathers. Other communities were using other gospels and writings which became accepted with the joining traditions. Two centuries later they are outlawing other gospels and it is no accident that were are following a handful of "4 Gospel" believers after Irenaeus.
Given the diversity of the early Christian even in the time of Paul it is amazing hearing the silence and small selection that comes down to us from so few people and views between Paul, Irenaeus and the Origin.

[Shermana]

Ignatius and Iraneus were arch heretics along with Marcion and the rest they condemned.

There is no evidence that Polycarp even taught him. Or that John made Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna.

[Mithrae]

Justin Martyr, who lived in Ephesus c. 132 CE, quotes John as an authoritative gospel (Dialogue with Trypho, CV and 1st Apology, LXI). The p52 fragment (c. 125CE) and p90 (c. 150-200CE) are both from the gospel of John. And as mentioned above, Heracleon's commentary on John is dated by some as early as 150-170CE and quotes extensively from the text.

The problem with using Justin Martyr as evidence for the early composition of John is that he [Justin] makes no specific reference to a Gospel written by John, nor does he clearly quote from the fourth gospel. At best the evidence shows that Justin and the author of John shared certain themes and ideas in common.

Not true - in fact though he never names the authors, Justin Martyr clearly used all four canonical gospels some three decades before Irenaeus wrote AH. From his Dialogue with Trypho, in order...

• For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee, is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, Worship me; and Christ answered him, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. . . . .
  For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, If it be possible, let this cup pass: ~ Dialogue with Trypho, 103.8 (cf. Luke 22:42-44)
  
  For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue, 105.1 (cf. John 1:1-3, 1:18, 3:16-18)
  
  And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder... ~ Dialogue, 106.4 (cf. Mark 3:17)
  
  Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him. ~ Dialogue, 106.4 (cf. Matthew 2)

Clearly, his reference to the memoirs is a lot more than simply sharing certain themes and ideas in common. And as I showed in one of the references above, he does quote John word-for-word also:

• For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. ~ 1 Apology 61.4 (cf. John 3:3; note also 1 Apology 46.2, another reference to Christ as firstborn and logos)

His references to John are arguably clearer than for any of the other three 'memoirs' - and as I say, it's interesting that he lived not four decades later in the very community the gospel is believed to have been written. But next someone will be saying that there's no evidence they existed before Justin Martyr, and he probably wrote them all, right?

Furthermore, assigning a date of 125CE to P52, is, to say the least, overly specific. Roberts was far less precise when it came to dating P52: "On the whole, we may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which P.Ryl. Gk 457 was most probably written." (An Unpublished Fragment, 16).

On the whole, with some confidence, most probably! Not exactly the unequivocal statement of certainty some biblical scholars would have us believe.

Fair enough; when I don't know better, I tend to trust what is confirmed by multiple sources more learned than I. "With some confidence" or "most probably" is about as good as it gets for a good two-thirds of historical investigation. Even if it was written in the mid-second century, such an early-dated fragment is certainly enough to help further confirm the evidence from our multiple other sources.

As for Heracleons commentary, the earliest reference to it [and the only text in which it survives] is in the extant parts of Oregons commentary on John c.230CE. Iraeneus makes no mention of the commentary which suggests that by 180CE either it was not in existence or it had not gained sufficiently wide a circulation to come to his attention.

Surely you know that's exceptionally unsound reasoning. There are many earlier Christian works which Irenaeus makes no mention of, so your reasoning would apply to the canonical book of Philemon, the Didache, the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Peter, the gospel of the Hebrews and gospel of the Egyptians, and so on down the line; all of them "either not in existence or had not gained sufficiently wide circulation to come to his attention." I hesitate to use the term 'absurd,' but I'm not sure what else would fit.

If you'd make the case that Origen commonly forged gnostic commentaries on canonical texts, or was likely to have done so in this case, I wouldn't mind hearing your evidence. Otherwise, as above, being an area I'm not particularly knowledgeable on, I'll take the agreeing claims of the multiple, reliable sites I tend to use over your absurd reasoning any day of the week; that Heracleon's commentary on John pre-dates Irenaeus' Against Heresies, or at the very least was written around the same time and entirely independantly.
---------------

Some quotes on the subject regarding what was alleged about Cerinthus....
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_an ... Chapter_28

As you can see by the Footnotes, the accusations themselves were contradictory, and his idea of the Logos as the Foreman of Creation is no different than Philo's explanation of the 2nd Temple concept of Logos.

Because Cerinthus believes in the 1000 year millenial reign there will be marriage, and eating and drinking, look at how Iraneus goes out of his way to describe him.

Papias (according to Eusebius) believed in a millenial kingdom too, yet Irenaeus apparently had a positive view of him. Regarding Cerinthus, Irenaeus again makes no mention at all of chilliasm (that I've seen), merely his gnostic creation views and distinction between Jesus and the Christ (AH 1.26 & 3.11).

That passage from Eusebius is not about Cerinthus writing the fourth gospel, or indeed about Cerinthus writing anything. It's saying that Cerinthus was the one who claimed that John wrote the Revelation! Whether that's true/reliable or not I don't know; Eusebius and some of his sources do not much like Revelation (in part because of its millenial kingdom). But Irenaeus seems to have no problem with it, and his condemnation of Cerinthus is for very different reasons. And again, we're left with nothing before Epiphanius in 390CE to suggest that Cerinthus wrote a gospel.

Ignatius and Iraneus were arch heretics along with Marcion and the rest they condemned.

There is no evidence that Polycarp even taught him. Or that John made Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna.

Your theological opinions about Ignatius, Irenaeus and Marcion do not count as historical evidence, nor grounds on which to dismiss the historical evidence they provide.

Besides what Irenaeus says, we learn something of Polycarp from the authentic letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 105-115 CE):

• My soul be for yours and theirs whom, for the honour of God, ye have sent to Smyrna; whence also I write to you, giving thanks unto the Lord, and loving Polycarp even as I do you. Remember me, as Jesus Christ also remembered you. Pray ye for the Church which is in Syria, whence I am led bound to Rome, being the last of the faithful who are there, even as I have been thought worthy to be chosen to show forth the honour of God. Farewell in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, our common hope. ~ Epistle to the Ephesians, XXI
  
  The Ephesians from Smyrna (whence I also write to you), who are here for the glory of God, as ye also are, who have in all things refreshed me, salute you, along with Polycarp, the bishop of the Smyrnans. The rest of the Churches, in honour of Jesus Christ, also salute you. Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ. ~ Epistle to the Magnesians XV

Whether there's more useful information to be gleaned from Ignatius' other letters, including his letter to Polycarp, or from Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, or from the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and from Irenaeus' own work, I really can't say. And I'm not sure it would be worth my effort in finding out: When you so sweepingly claim there's no evidence, dismissing Ignatius entirely as a heretic, I'm starting to suspect that you're more interested in a theological agenda than in historical discussion.

More to the point, I don't see how fully confirming the specifics of Polycarp's credentials has any great significance as far as identifying the beloved disciple who wrote the fourth gospel. His testimony regarding John at Ephesus is already admitted as relatively weak evidence, since it comes 2nd or 3rd-hand from Irenaeus; if Polycarp was certainly John's long-time disciple that wouldn't make the evidence much stronger, and if he'd barely met John and received his office merely from his own church the evidence wouldn't disappear.

[Student]

[font=Times New Roman]

Justin Martyr, who lived in Ephesus c. 132 CE, quotes John as an authoritative gospel (Dialogue with Trypho, CV and 1st Apology, LXI). The p52 fragment (c. 125CE) and p90 (c. 150-200CE) are both from the gospel of John. And as mentioned above, Heracleon's commentary on John is dated by some as early as 150-170CE and quotes extensively from the text.

The problem with using Justin Martyr as evidence for the early composition of John is that he [Justin] makes no specific reference to a Gospel written by John, nor does he clearly quote from the fourth gospel. At best the evidence shows that Justin and the author of John shared certain themes and ideas in common.

Not true - in fact though he never names the authors, Justin Martyr clearly used all four canonical gospels some three decades before Irenaeus wrote AH. From his Dialogue with Trypho, in order...

• For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee, is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, Worship me; and Christ answered him, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. . . . .
  For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, If it be possible, let this cup pass: ~ Dialogue with Trypho, 103.8 (cf. Luke 22:42-44)
  
  For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue, 105.1 (cf. John 1:1-3, 1:18, 3:16-18)
  
  And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder... ~ Dialogue, 106.4 (cf. Mark 3:17)
  
  Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him. ~ Dialogue, 106.4 (cf. Matthew 2)

Clearly, his reference to the memoirs is a lot more than simply sharing certain themes and ideas in common. And as I showed in one of the references above, he does quote John word-for-word also:

• For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. ~ 1 Apology 61.4 (cf. John 3:3; note also 1 Apology 46.2, another reference to Christ as firstborn and logos)

His references to John are arguably clearer than for any of the other three 'memoirs' - and as I say, it's interesting that he lived not four decades later in the very community the gospel is believed to have been written. But next someone will be saying that there's no evidence they existed before Justin Martyr, and he probably wrote them all, right?

Furthermore, assigning a date of 125CE to P52, is, to say the least, overly specific. Roberts was far less precise when it came to dating P52: "On the whole, we may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which P.Ryl. Gk 457 was most probably written." (An Unpublished Fragment, 16).

On the whole, with some confidence, most probably! Not exactly the unequivocal statement of certainty some biblical scholars would have us believe.

Fair enough; when I don't know better, I tend to trust what is confirmed by multiple sources more learned than I. "With some confidence" or "most probably" is about as good as it gets for a good two-thirds of historical investigation. Even if it was written in the mid-second century, such an early-dated fragment is certainly enough to help further confirm the evidence from our multiple other sources.

As for Heracleons commentary, the earliest reference to it [and the only text in which it survives] is in the extant parts of Oregons commentary on John c.230CE. Iraeneus makes no mention of the commentary which suggests that by 180CE either it was not in existence or it had not gained sufficiently wide a circulation to come to his attention.

Surely you know that's exceptionally unsound reasoning. There are many earlier Christian works which Irenaeus makes no mention of, so your reasoning would apply to the canonical book of Philemon, the Didache, the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Peter, the gospel of the Hebrews and gospel of the Egyptians, and so on down the line; all of them "either not in existence or had not gained sufficiently wide circulation to come to his attention." I hesitate to use the term 'absurd,' but I'm not sure what else would fit.

The claim that Justin quotes John as an authoritative gospel is palpably untrue. Justin never specifically names any work by John, and while he does refer to the memoirs of the Apostles, saying that these recollections were a gospel, he refers to these memoirs in the singular i.e. () it is called a gospel, so there was only one work, not many gospels.

As for your statement that Justin does quote John word-for-word, put politely, it flies in the face of the evidence. Take for example, your comparison of Dialague 105.1 and John 1:1-3, 1:18, 3:16-18. Selectively picking the odd word or phrase from over half a dozen verses of John cannot be construed as a word for word quotation. Furthermore whilst it might be possible to manipulate English translations to provide some sort of congruity it fails completely when we compare the Greek texts. For example

From Dialogue, 105.1
only begotten for that was of the father of all things
- -

From John 3:18
of the only begotten son of the god


Same idea, different words, different declensions, so no, not a word-for-word quotation of John by Justin.

The same applies when comparing 1 Apology 61.4 and John 3:3

Justin " Unless you are born again you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
- -- - - -

John " If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God
- -- -

While we might choose to ignore the difference between entering the kingdom of heaven and seeing the kingdom of God, we cannot ignore how differently each author expresses the idea of being born again. Justin uses the word -- be born again, whereas John uses the more unusual phrase -- be born from above. If Justin was quoting John, word-for-word, why doesnt he adopt Johns more peculiar idiom?

Put simply the only conclusion that can be safely drawn is that while Justin and the author of John shared certain ideas in common, Justin did not refer to or quote from the gospel of John.

Finally, with regard to Heracleon, and his commentary on John. Heracleon was known to Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandrea. Indeed Clement of Alexandria described Heracleon as the most esteemed of the school of Valentinus. Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses, writes at length against Velentinus, and his followers but he only briefly mentions Heracleon. Given that Heracleon was such an eminent Valentinian it is odd that Irenaeus does not mention his commentary. What other conclusion are we to draw other than the commentary did not exist in 180CE or that had not gained sufficiently wide a circulation to come to the attention of Irenaeaus (and Clement and Tertullian)?[/font]

[Shermana]

Amusing, I am suspected of having an agenda and no historical consideration in mind all of the sudden because I brand Ignatius as an Arch Heretic in the same post where I ask for evidence where John himself appointed Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna. It seems Iraneus had a lot to say about his mentor Polycarp like John fleeing from bathhouses.

And of course, the person who says that Justin Martyr quoted John word for word has no agenda at all. Because of course Justin Martyr quoted it word for word exactly, yeah. Cough. And a letter from Ignatius proves what exactly about his relationship with John?

As it stands, there is no concrete position that the Gospel of John was known and attributed to John until the enemy-of-Cerinthus entered the stage. Any claim otherwise is pure intelletual dishonesty.