Malachi151

Vork recent brought up this book in a different thread:

The Unfinished Gospel: Notes on the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Hardcover) by Evan Powell

The book seems to put forward evidence that John was the first gospel written, at least in some form. I have heard of this before, especially the idea that a gnostic John was the first written, which was later revised into the form of the current John.

One reader comments as follows:

I have some issues with this. Just based on reading the modern English translations John seems to come after the synoptics to me. Here are some examples of why:

John's crucifixion scene is more descriptive than Marks, and here John explicitly references Psalm 22 and build a narrative around the Psalm to justify it, as opposed to Mark which simply paraphrases the Psalm with no additional details.

This seems to me to indicate that John came later and Mark first. Mark is the more simplistic, and also why would Mark hide references that had already been exposed?

All throughout Mark its written almost like a mystery novel, with lots of hidden messages that you can only figure out if you identify his scriptural references and then follow them, for example when he described John the Baptist using a quote from a story describing Elijah. This is a clue for the reader to recognize the passage and look it up and figure out that JtB is Elijah.

He does the same in the crucifixion scene, etc., but this would seem like quite a silly game if John weer already out there with its explicit references.

So, to me, I don't see that John came before Mark, but what are the other thoughts on this? No I haven't read the book in question, I just saw it in Vork's post today.

neilgodfrey

The Gospel of Peter draws on a host of allusions from the Old Testament (including quite a few in the canonical gospels) without once saying "as it was written" -- in other words, one would have to be knowledgable in the OT scriptures to detect the references. Yet this does not stop pretty much the whole of scholarship taking the Gospel of Peter as being written subsequent to the canonical gospels.

There are a few other inconsistencies in Powell's book. One example is the absence from the GJohn's technical and institutional language that became well-known and embraced by the Church. True he does not use terms like "gospel" "apostle" "church" or discuss the "eucharist" -- but all those come from Paul and his writings are taken as the earliest.

Powell also takes the difference between the synoptics and John over the day of the Passover as another indicator of John's priority. (The synoptics speak of Jesus eating a passover yet being crucified on the day of preparation, the day before the passover; john speaks of the last super being eaten before the passover and jesus dying on the passover the next day; Powell says the former is more likely a later development to give more meaning to the eucharist.) However, when we look at the total context and see that even as late as Justin Martyr this "father" could write that the last supper was in fact after the resurrection and with the resurrected Jesus, then the whole question is thrown back to the starting block.

I like Evan Powell's books, but I do have questions like this on his priority of John argument. It seems that Powell's argument rests on the assumption that all 4 canonical gospels must have originally been related to each other in some sort of chain sequence, one following the other in essentially what remained as it evolved the one "christian tradition".

I would ask, however, that if John appears to be opposed in some measure to the apostles Peter, Mary, Thomas and Judas, and Mark appears to be opposed to all 12, and the Gospel of Judas appears to at least diminish the other 11, and so on and on, then maybe we are looking at something quite apart from John as either a forerunner or final product of a straight evolutionary trip.

I have notes and essays on some of these points stacked away from over the years. I must bring them out and place them online asap and offer more detailed references to them.

Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com

yalla

Trajectory.
The further along in time you go the more divine JC becomes.
Its not gonna happen in reverse, that is later publications having him less divine than older.
So:
#1 ["Mark"] has him adopted as "son of god" as an adult at his baptism.

#2 and #3 ["Matthew and "Luke"] have him more divine for longer.
He was BORN son of god.
[A bit of detail here, "Luke" actually pushes the divinity marginally further back ,before conception, than "Matthew" who has it when Mary is already pregnant, but I'm not at home so I can't quote the appropriate verses].

#4 ["John"] goes the whole hog. He has JC divine since the beginning.
Trajectory.
cheers
yalla

neilgodfrey

That would be true IF we could know that there was "a trajectory". But a neat evolutionary flow is really a construct to rationalize the various endings of these gospels. To then say that we know john came first because of the trajectory is simply circular reasoning. It is amazing how so much of biblical "scholarship" has repeated as if a truism this basic logical flaw!


Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com

neilgodfrey

It is equally if not more plausible to argue that what started out as a divine being who had some interaction with earth over time became more and more human while retaining his divinity. Paul's writings, recall, are all about a super divine Jesus; it is the widely recognized as last of the synoptics, Luke, who depicts the most compassionate Jesus, the one with the most "human appeal".


Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com

yalla

So I gather you are not one for "Markan" priority?

neilgodfrey

I am for markan priority, but i'm not necessarily for linear trajectories in either direction. But I was not discussing "my position" previously -- i don't think the nature of the evidence allows us to be anything more tentative about most things in the study of christian origins.

yalla

5 more examples of trajectory.
[From memory, I'm away from all my books and notes.]

My premise is that evolution of theology, growth in the story, a discernible devolopment , a trajectory will be perceived if we look at these story elements in the sequence 'Mark'-Matthew'-'Luke'-'John'.

Detail is added in later works , rather than reduced, as a general rule.

Story 1.Feeding 5000.
"John" has the added detail of the bread being barley bread [from the original 2 KIngs inspiration for the "Markan' story]. If The other gospels came later then a case needs to be made for not using it.
Bit weak I'll admit cos you can ask why "Mark" et al didnt include it from the original in the Tanakh anyway. But for whatever reason they had they didn't include it. 'John' did.

2.Entry into Jerusalem
"Mark" has the basic story [based on the Tanakh]. Which develops into the inclusion of branch waving along the editions of 'Matthew' and 'Luke'.
'John' goes one step further and identifies them specifically as palm branches [which apparently don't grow outside Jerusalem because of the winter frosts].

Story 3. Violence in the garden.
The story grows. From the HP's slave having his ear cut off, to the ear being identified as the right ear to the ear being identified as belonging to the slave named Malthus. 'John' has the lot.

Story 4. Lazarus raised.
Not in the first 2 gospels but present as a character in 'Luke'.
Who gets a starring role in 'John'.
With subsidiary characters Mary and Martha also present in 'Luke'.
And a comment in 'Luke' that some wouldn't believe JC even if he raised the dead.
Elaborated in 'John' [A wink is as good as a nod to a blind man].

Story 5. It's a bit fishy.
Not in 'Mark' and 'Matthew' but present in 'Luke'.
And in 'John'.
So by now we get more than a hint that there is a literary dependence between 'Luke' and 'John'.
And 'Luke' is not the first of the synoptics [well not for those who go for 'Markan' priority anyway].
And 'John' has the amplified versions of 'Luke''s stories, as above and this one
Referring to the miraculous catch whilst the guys were fishing and catching nothing [as a fisher I know the frustration] until JC told them where to do it.

That'll do.

cheers
yalla

cognac

If P52 is the earliest gospel fragment (dating somewhere in the first half of the second century), and it's from John, and if John predates the other gospels, then what does that say about the date of composition of the synoptics?

Malachi151

I agree, but I'm talking about specific references that are shared between Mark and John.

Mark and John both reference Psalm 22 in the crucifixion scene. Mark does it implicitly, and John does it explicitly.

It seems to me that Mark's implicit references were a type of puzzle, but if Mark was building off of John, or knew of John, then using implicit references that everyone already knew of as explicit references just seems silly.

I also think that because of the shared references between Mark and John, that John had read either Mark or Matthew. (Or one could argue the other way around, that Mark read John, but I don't think so)

I think that Powell is presenting the opposite argument, that it started with the wholly divine Jesus in Paul, then goes to a semi-humanized Jesus in John, then to a more human Jesus in the synoptics.

I don't see it quite that linearly, like Neil said.