Peter Kirby

I have gotten hold of Stephen T. Davis's brief criticism (in Philosophia Christi) of my chapter of The Empty Tomb (also found as in essay in The Journal of Higher Criticism).

He correctly notes that my analysis in that essay rests on two disputed assumptions:

1. The Gospel of Mark ends at Mark 16:8.

2. The Gospel of John depends on the Synoptics.

I have already asked for citations concerning the first. I will now ask also for citations concerning the second.

And although I do not believe I can make a fresh contribution on the problem of Mark 16:8 (has it all been said? in the journals, if not on the 'net?), I think I could do something right towards the end of establishing (if it can be established) that John depends on the Synoptics. This problem has been plumbed, but perhaps not deeply enough, with only one or two full books on the problem that I've noticed.

So I welcome your input and citations concerning the question of John's use of the Synoptics.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Malachi151

Well, one of the things that I look at is the fact that there are several obscure scriptural references that are shared between John and the synoptics, and I don't see how he would have picked these same references out of the scriptures independent of looking at something else that had these references.

Peter Kirby

For examples?

I'm also wondering about a common source of florilegia that may have circulated in the early church, containing the portions of scripture thought to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Ben C Smith

Richard Bauckham (not a popular name around here at the moment) has an article in his own edited The Gospels for All Christians arguing that the author of John knew the gospel of Mark. It is a good case. I have a brief write-up on the article, but of course I recommend you look at the book if you have not already done so.

A classic treatment is that by B. H. Streeter in chapter 14 of The Four Gospels. This is available online. Streeter makes a good case for the author of John knowing the gospel of Luke as well as that of Mark. Matthew always seems to be a wild card.

Ben.

Malachi151

For example:

Compare to:

Both reference

Another example:

Compare to:

Matthew and Luke also have the same scene, Matthew explicitly references the same passages John does:

First I say that Mark is more subtle in his references, he typically paraphrases passages from the Septuagint, while John more often explicitly points them out and says "so that it was fulfilled", etc.

The thing is, though, that John points to many of the exact same passages that Mark does, and when you consider all the possibilities in the Tanak, I think that it would be quite unlikely that John and Mark would point to so many of the same passages if they were completely unrelated.

Why do Mark and Matthew both paraphrase the casting of lots for clothing, and John also points to this passage? I mean there isn't anything about that line in and of itself that would draw people to it. Even if John were drawn to Psalm 22 as a reference, why that line out of all the possible lines?

Same with the Triumphal Entry scene. Why do they all latch onto this as a scene, with Jesus riding in on a colt? Mark implicitly references the same passage that John explicitly references. Why would they both pick these exact same passages from the Tanak to build their stories on, if not for influence.

Either John got these references from one or more of the synoptics, or they all have some other common document that makes these same references.

Peter Kirby

This question is for Stephen Carlson, Ben C. Smith, and others who have attended SBL or are familiar with its workings and submission process...

If I wrote a really good paper on John's use of the Synoptics, what are the chances that I would get to present it at the 2007 SBL?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Ben C Smith

While I am flattered to be mistaken for someone who is familiar with the inner workings of the SBL , I have never actually attended a meeting (though I do have a basic membership). Carlson would be the chap for this question.

Ben.

Peter Kirby

I lol'd. :blush:

I got a pretty good response on the Johannine Literature listserv.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson

It depends on how good, I suppose. SBL has been adding more sessions to allow more people to present, so there are more openings than ever before.

Stephen

Peter Kirby

I suppose it depends, too, on whether it advances the state of the art in NT studies. (It could be really good without breaking ground.)

Thanks for replying. Is there any way to tell what kind of "panels" / sessions there will be, or is that decided after the submission of papers?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby