The bit in yellow. It's when a fair copy is made of the finished work and further copies are made from that, and presumably leave the author's or owner's immediate control.What does "circulation" even mean?I know this is a common opinion, but I have my doubts about it. Do we have manuscript evidence for a 20 chapter John circulating without chapter 21?
Perhaps I should clarify what I mean. I think there are internal aporias in the text of John that suggest it's been rearranged and revised, but such rearrangement and revision is something authors do with their own works. Until the author considers the work finished and has a fair copy made of the finished work and other copies are made from that, the author can continue to make revisions to his work. Unless we have manuscript evidence of different forms of the text, it is very difficult to tell that there were different editions (a modern word that doesn't fit antiquity terribly well). We have such evidence with the different endings of Mark.
I think the 21 chapter form of John may be the only form of the text that ever circulated. The Evangelist may have intended to make further revisions, but was prevented from doing so for some reason (such as his death). Perhaps it was published by someone else with (minor?) revisions. But do we have enough evidence to conclude that two or more forms of the text (i.e., two forms with significant differences, such as one ending at 20:31 and another at 21:25) circulated in antiquity?
Best,
Ken
I don't see that what Irenaeus says requires us to think either that Ptolemy is lying about what's in the text of John or that Ptolemy had a different text of John. Irenaeus is not distinguishing between the Lemma and the Comment when he's describing Ptolemy's commentary. But it appears that Ptolemy might well be working from the known text of John, which does contain the words Father, Charis, Monogenes, and Aletheia. John 1:14 (Berean Literal): 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld His glory, a glory as of an only begotten (Monogenes) from the Father, full of grace (Charis) and truth (Aletheia).'What little we have from the heretical commentaries on John indicate that they were indeed using different versions than the canonical version. For example, Irenaeus states in relation to Ptolemy's commentary on John:For he styles Him a light which shines 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. John 1:14 (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 Æons. For he mentions the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia. Such are the views of Ptolemæus.
Irenaeus is reading from Ptolemy's commentary, he doesn't have the copy of John that Ptolemy was using. Irenaeus is saying that the quote Ptolemy provides is different from what his version of John says. According to Irenaeus it is presumably because Ptolemy is a liar, but far more likely it is just the case that Ptolemy's version had different wording.
Ireneaus is objecting to Ptolemy deriving the first Tetrad from John 1.14. Irenaeus thinks it's illegitimate exegesis of the text because that isn't what John means (in Irenaeus' understanding) when he uses those words. He's accusing Ptolemy of eisegesis of John 1.14, not of having a different text.
It's a little harder to see from whence Ptolemy derived the first Ogdoad because the word Ecclesia is not found in John and Irenaeus doesn't provide us with any hints. But it is fairly easy to see where Ptolemy might have derived Logos (John 1.1), Zoe (John 1.4, 14.6), and man, either from Son of Man (John 1.14, 15; 3.13, 14, etc.) or the instances in the gospel in which characters refer to him as a man (.g., John 4.29, 9.11). So the Father is the Father, and we can't (or I can't) tell where Ptolemy derived Ecclesia, but the other six members of the first Ogdoad are all things that Jesus is in John (he's the Word, the Only-begotten, the Truth, the Life, the Man and full of Grace).
I do not think the information that we have is sufficient to conclude that Ptolemy was working with a different text of John, only that Irenaeus thought he was making stuff up based on what was in John.
Best,
Ken
https://www.pseudepigrapha.com/apocrypha_nt/ptl.htm
Statistics: Posted by Ken Olson — Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:06 pm