Dealing with Objections to GJohn as anti-Gnostic polemic (H&J Part 05)

Could the Gospel of John really contain anti-Gnostic sentiments?  As we have seen in previous entries, many scholars throughout history have thought so.  But others have argued against this idea.  Before we enter into an in-depth analysis of John’s relationship with Christian or Hermetic Gnosticism, it will be helpful to first deal with several possible objections to this proposal.

Potential objections we will be addressing in this entry are as follows:

1) Trinitarian objections on the basis of an ambiguous or “balanced” Johannine Christology;

2) objections on the basis of a presumed lack of polemical clarity;

3) objections of the basis of a perceived lack of interest in historical polemic in the other Gospels;

4) objections on the basis of later Gnostic infatuation with GJohn;

5) objections on the basis of a presumed lack of doctrinal clarity in the first century;

6) Trinitarian objections on the basis of alleged inefficiency of potential anti-Gnostic statements;

7) objections based on the satisfaction provided by Jewish evidence.

H&J Part 05:


Comments

12 responses to “Dealing with Objections to GJohn as anti-Gnostic polemic (H&J Part 05)”

  1. Some interesting points to investigate. I watched you lecture on youtube restoration channel. During the QA you mention two scholars who are revising the dating window of poimandres. Can you please clarify the spellings of their names and the specific works you are referring to?

    Like

  2. Kegan A. Chandler Avatar
    Kegan A. Chandler

    Hi Duncan,
    Garth Fowden and Gilles Quispel were the two scholars I mentioned during the Q&A who have generally dated the origins of the extant philosophical Hermetica to the first century CE. See Fowden’s book ‘The Egyptian Hermes’ (Princeton, 1993) and various articles from Quispel (“Hermes Trismegistus and the Origins of Gnosticism,” Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Brill: Leiden, 1992); “The Ascelpius,” Gnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern Times (New York: SUNY Press, 1998).) Quispel in particular dates the Poimandres text featured in my lecture to the first century CE “at the latest” (“Asclepius,” p. 75).

    It is important to know that for centuries various scholars of the Hermetica have recognized that the philosophical Hermetica, including Poimandres, have their beginnings in the first century CE. Many of them have also concluded that even if the extant Hermetic writings in question were not around during GJohn’s composition, that these texts were incorporating matter certainly old enough to be contemporary with the Fourth Gospel. For opinions along these lines I can cite: Isaac Casaubon (1600s), David Chambers (1880s), R. Reitzenstein (1900s), G.R.S. Mead (1900s), Harold Willoughby (1930s), Lewis Spence (1950s), C.H. Dodd (1960s), C.K. Barrett (1960s), Gilles Quispel (1990s), Jean-Pierre Mahé (2000s), Garth Fowden (2000s), and more. No doubt my contentions relative to the dating of the Hermetic ideas at hand and the plausibility of their proximity to GJohn stand in good company.

    I am working on a new material regarding all of this dating business; been quite busy, however. Will get there!

    Like

    1. Thanks for the info Kegan. I will look into this further as I see GJohn as a fulcrum in so many beliefs. I have been asking my self the same question about the language used, shifting from the what to the why. Why was this book written in its style and was the language really unique or does it come from something older.

      I have seen Hebrew language being concerned with community, not so much the individual. So, why so much “I am” and is it speaking of the individual?

      Ego eimi language may come from wordings like this:-

      https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YYwl40XfPhwC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=%22i+am%22+in+egyptian+literature&source=bl&ots=HrPH-1zrhv&sig=KIEh2Q9ds3prVQ34IEfXTksu3cs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj5LvxxvvXAhWMLsAKHTd8Dj8Q6AEISjAF#v=onepage&q=%22i%20am%22%20in%20egyptian%20literature&f=false

      Note the reference to Thoth.

      But what did John mean by logos? Exodus 18:20, Psalms 119:142 & Deuteronomy 32:47 all in LXX. Cf John 14:6.

      There is certainly much to think about.

      Like

    2. Hope you do not mind but I passed on some of your work to professor Hurtado including this audio blog to which in part he replied:-

      “though very earnest no doubt, is not himself a trained scholar in the field in which he expresses his opinions. He writes as someone on a personal pilgrimage, not as a scholar in the field.”

      Please take this as constructive criticism. He also raised some concerns about the dating of final forms of the texts. I realise we all have our biases and I have not yet had chance to read your book.

      Personally, I see the primacy of certain phrases being highly problematic on both sides of the debate but it has been noted that some of the hermetic language has origins in earlier Hebrew texts. Teasing this apart is going to need more that just dates of inception as for the most part dating is highly subjective but we do need to start somewhere & I appreciate your efforts. Let’s hope that some more documentary evidence can also be found.

      Like

      1. Kegan A. Chandler Avatar
        Kegan A. Chandler

        Hi Duncan,

        Waving one’s hand and saying “oh, he’s no scholar” is neither an argument nor “constructive criticism.” My position about the plausibility of a relationship between GJohn and Hermeticism is in no way contingent upon “the dating of final forms of the texts.” He is welcome to look down his nose, but if he wants to truly criticize the proposition at hand beyond vague talk of motives and ‘training’, he will ultimately need to contend with the scholars I’ve listed above, on whose work I have predicated my opinion.

        Thanks Duncan!

        Happy studies,
        — K.C.

        Like

      1. Kegan A. Chandler Avatar
        Kegan A. Chandler

        Duncan,

        Yes, I too find a good deal of evidence heading in this direction. I’m working on a paper dealing with the GThomas connection presently. Pagels and many others have rightly discerned (but only faintly) the lines of evidence between Gnosticism, Hermes, GThomas, and GJohn–it will take a good deal of effort to untangle it all, of course.

        Also, those ‘I am’ references are great; thank you for that. Have you noticed also the repeated use of ‘I am’ language of the Egyptian cult of Isis? There is a great line in the Kyme aretalogy: “I am (ego eimi) Isis, the Queen of every land, it is I Who was taught by Hermes (Thoth).”

        — K.C.

        Like

    3. Just came across this work which may have some relevance:-
      https://blog.oup.com/2016/04/greek-egyptian-interactions-literature/
      You may have already seen it, but just in case.

      Like

  3. I have been looking at http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@texts/0301_corp_herm/01_poimandres.htm in conjunction with your presentation. I am interested in where the term “vine” is used?

    Like

  4. Been doing some work on pre-existance & thought you might find this useful.

    Click to access Assmann_Solar_Discourse_1994.pdf

    See translation on page 113.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment