D. Tripaldi, “Tra Alessandria e Roma: narrazione cosmogonica e forme comunitarie nell’Apocrifo di Giovanni,” Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 28/1 (2011) 77-116, esp. 115-16. See also M. Tardieu, Écrits gnostiques. Codex de Berlin (Paris, 1984) 38-39 and 42-43, though not convincing in every detail of his reconstruction; G. Filoramo, Il risveglio della gnosi, ovvero diventare dio (Roma/Bari, 1990) 141-69, discussing more generally the «elective affinities» between John and “Gnosticism”; J.-D. Dubois, “La tradition johannique dans l’Apocryphe de Jean,” Adamantius 18 (2012) 108-17. All in all, then, I fully concur with the late F. Bovon, “The Emergence of Christianity,” in Id., The Emergence of Christianity. Collected Studies 3 (Tübingen, 2013) 1-16, that «the primitive Acts of John and the Apocryphon of John may be part of the sacred literature of the left wing of the Johannine movement» (7).

D. Tripaldi, “Tra Alessandria e Roma: narrazione cosmogonica e forme comunitarie nell’Apocrifo di Giovanni,” Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 28/1 (2011) 77-116, esp. 115-16. See also M. Tardieu, Écrits gnostiques. Codex de Berlin (Paris, 1984) 38-39 and 42-43, though not convincing in every detail of his reconstruction; G. Filoramo, Il risveglio della gnosi, ovvero diventare dio (Roma/Bari, 1990) 141-69, discussing more generally the «elective affinities» between John and “Gnosticism”; J.-D. Dubois, “La tradition johannique dans l’Apocryphe de Jean,” Adamantius 18 (2012) 108-17. All in all, then, I fully concur with the late F. Bovon, “The Emergence of Christianity,” in Id., The Emergence of Christianity. Collected Studies 3 (Tübingen, 2013) 1-16, that «the primitive Acts of John and the Apocryphon of John may be part of the sacred literature of the left wing of the Johannine movement» (7).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Junod and Kaestli, Acta Johannis, 487-89. 632. 646. Our saying is probably also referred to in Evangelium Veritatis (nhc i,3) 35,4-6, and the anonymous author of this early 2nd century work (Valentinus himself?) does seem to know 1 John (see 30,24-31). On his part, Lalleman, “The Acts of John,” 245-56, argues that the author of the Acts of John takes the same position as the Jesus followers opposed in the Johannine epistles, and insists that his work «may have originated at the same time as the Johannine and Ignatian epistles, or later, in case aj’s spiritualizing type of Christology survived» (255). If Lalleman is right, it is possible that Acts of John and 1 John have independent access to a common bulk of Jesus traditions. On the complex interplay between orality and literacy in cases such as this, see S.E. Young, Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Their Explicit Appeal to the Words of Jesus in Light of Orality Studies (Tübingen, 2011) 103-106.

Junod and Kaestli, Acta Johannis, 487-89. 632. 646. Our saying is probably also referred to in Evangelium Veritatis (nhc i,3) 35,4-6, and the anonymous author of this early 2nd century work (Valentinus himself?) does seem to know 1 John (see 30,24-31). On his part, Lalleman, “The Acts of John,” 245-56, argues that the author of the Acts of John takes the same position as the Jesus followers opposed in the Johannine epistles, and insists that his work «may have originated at the same time as the Johannine and Ignatian epistles, or later, in case aj’s spiritualizing type of Christology survived» (255). If Lalleman is right, it is possible that Acts of John and 1 John have independent access to a common bulk of Jesus traditions. On the complex interplay between orality and literacy in cases such as this, see S.E. Young, Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Their Explicit Appeal to the Words of Jesus in Light of Orality Studies (Tübingen, 2011) 103-106.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Similarly, Theobald, Herrenworte, 506-11.

Similarly, Theobald, Herrenworte, 506-11.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cp. John 3,5-6 with P.Oxy. 1081,11-16 (verso), and comments by Pesce, Le parole dimenticate, 632.

Waldstein and Wisse, The Apocryphon of John, 1. See also K. King, Approaching the Variants of the Apocryphon of John, in J.D. Turner and A. McGuire (eds) The Nag Hammadi Library After Fifty Years. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration, November 17-22, 1995 (Leiden et al., 1997) 105-37, here 124-26, who adds that «there are no clear cases where the differences between ii and iv cannot be accounted for by scribal error or linguistic preferences, indicating a close linear relationship between these two manuscripts» (126). Despite this growing consensus, it suffices here to note that, comparing the four diverging Coptic translations of aj 22,19, U.-K. Plisch, “The Right and the Left Penis. Remarks on Textual Problems in the Apocryphon of John,” Adamantius 18 (2012) 65-70, here 70, has come to the conclusion that at least at one point «the Greek versions must have varied from one another». For more doubts on Waldstein and Wisse’s reconstruction, see H. Lundhaug, “The Nag Hammadi Codices. Textual Fluidity in Coptic,” in A. Bausi et al. (eds) Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction (Hamburg, 2015) 419-23, here 421.

Waldstein and Wisse, The Apocryphon of John, 1. See also K. King, Approaching the Variants of the Apocryphon of John, in J.D. Turner and A. McGuire (eds) The Nag Hammadi Library After Fifty Years. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration, November 17-22, 1995 (Leiden et al., 1997) 105-37, here 124-26, who adds that «there are no clear cases where the differences between ii and iv cannot be accounted for by scribal error or linguistic preferences, indicating a close linear relationship between these two manuscripts» (126). Despite this growing consensus, it suffices here to note that, comparing the four diverging Coptic translations of aj 22,19, U.-K. Plisch, “The Right and the Left Penis. Remarks on Textual Problems in the Apocryphon of John,” Adamantius 18 (2012) 65-70, here 70, has come to the conclusion that at least at one point «the Greek versions must have varied from one another». For more doubts on Waldstein and Wisse’s reconstruction, see H. Lundhaug, “The Nag Hammadi Codices. Textual Fluidity in Coptic,” in A. Bausi et al. (eds) Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction (Hamburg, 2015) 419-23, here 421.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Some useful remarks in Pesce, Le parole dimenticate, 599.

Some useful remarks in Pesce, Le parole dimenticate, 599.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Pesce, Le parole dimenticate, 570-72. 574-75. 577. 581-82, and more recently M. Grosso, “Trasmissione e ricezione della parabola del pescatore (Vangelo secondo Tommaso 8,1-3),” in M. Pesce and M. Rescio (eds) La trasmissione delle parole di Gesù nei primi tre secoli (Brescia, 2011) 101-17, here 109-15, and Detti segreti, 109-44.

See Pesce, Le parole dimenticate, 570-72. 574-75. 577. 581-82, and more recently M. Grosso, “Trasmissione e ricezione della parabola del pescatore (Vangelo secondo Tommaso 8,1-3),” in M. Pesce and M. Rescio (eds) La trasmissione delle parole di Gesù nei primi tre secoli (Brescia, 2011) 101-17, here 109-15, and Detti segreti, 109-44.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation