Renee

I was watching the God Who Wasn't There a few days ago and have a question about the basis and timeline of the biblical gospels. Was John written by someone going off copies of Matthew, Mark and Luke at around the same time? The film gave that impression, but I thought John was written without those in mind and came somewhat later than the other three.

Could someone point me in the right direction? Thanks.

Renee

pharoah

My impression is that there is no real scholarly consensus on the dating of GJohn. Many scholars lean toward an early date because of things like GJohn's knowledge of Jerusalem artifacts and lack of apocalyptic material. On the other hand, many other scholars support a late date because they see dependence on the synoptics, particularly Mark. One thing that we can be sure of is that the gospel in its present form has been heavily edited, which makes it quite possible that GJohn as we now have it is a 2nd-century product.

Diogenes the Cynic

GJohn is a layered work with different layers of authorship at different times, but it's Canonical form is usually dated to sometime around the turn of the 1st century. The author knows about the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues so that puts it at least in the 90's.

What John knew of synoptics is an open question. It shows awareness of some Markan material (e.g. an empty tomb) but does not quote directly from it. The fact that it contains no Q material, that it has no Nativity or virgin birth and that it implies that Jesus was born in Nazareth (showing no awareness of a Bethlehem tradition) would tend to suggest that the author was not familiar with Matthew or Luke.

S.C.Carlson

There aren't really that many scholars who support an early date for John, unless they're talking about one of its sources (e.g. a "Signs Gospel"). Also, there is still a scholarly divide on John's dependence on the synoptics--it is more popular in Europe than in North America. For example, Stephen Paterson's argument for the independence of Thomas uses the premised independence of John as a point of comparison.

A date in the 90s lacks the controversy of the other gospels because it agrees with both tradition (via Irenaeus) and modern scholarly approaches to dating. On internal evidence, John, as we have it, must be written after the death of Peter and either near or after the death of pretty much the last person reputed to have seen Jesus.

Stephen

The Bishop

Are there any links as to what this God Who Wasn't There programme is? Sounds fascinating, if a little misinformed (but it's a TV documentary - at least I'm assuming it is - and they always do provide a very skimpy picture).

Personal speculation coming up. The Christian viewpoint is that GJohn is an eyewitness account, according to John 21: 24

24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

However, the context actually tells us the opposite.

20. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21. Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22. Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

(I just put the last verse in to indicate that it's actually the very end of the Gospel.)

So, what can we deduce from this? First of all, even without the context about the strange tale of whether Jesus had said the disciple would not die or not, the grammar of the sentence rules it out as having been written by the same person who was the disciple. The author of that piece of writing is part of a "we", separate from "the disciple", a body of people that "know his testimony to be true".

Then again, the telling and explanation of the "tarry till I come" story. It carefully explains that, sure, there was a story that this disciple would not die before Jesus returned, but in fact that's not what he said - he said, "If I will it that he tarry till I come, what is that to you?" Why would this particular disclaimer be put in the Gospel? Surely it can only be because the disciple, the witness to the events that the author/s of GJohn could rely on for truth, the man supposed never to die until Jesus had returned.... must have died!

One other reason that GJohn is held to be late by many scholars is not, in fact, because it "relies on Matthew and Luke" (in fact the opposite can certainly be shown), but because it is a well-developed philosophical work of sophisticated theology, in addition to being a very accomplished work of Greek literature. And therefore can it really have been the product of a poorly educated Galilean who had been amongst those who followed Jesus?

But the story as I piece it together from those crucial final verses shows that both possibilities can coincide. The verses themselves describe how the disciple had described what he had seen himself, and are clearly authored by a separate and distinct person or persons, a committee or small church community, in fact. And it is this committee that clothed the basic "Jesus did this and Jesus did that" tales of the eyewitness in the philosophical discourses and treatises, based, incidentally, upon Jewish festival days, that John is so renowned for. So the eyewitness testimony from someone who was there in 30 CE, could have been pieced together over several years, decades even. But the final production of GJohn would not have occurred until the disciple died.

It so happens that there is a written witness to this witness - Irenaeus (c. 185) writes of meeting Porphiry in his youth, when Porphiry was an old man, and that he spoke of meeting "the disciple whom Jesus loved" when he was an old man, and that this was supposed to have been maybe as late as 90-100CE. If this is the same person as the GJohn eyewitness, and if the speculation that he was dead (but maybe not long dead"), and if the estimation of his age at death can be regarded as reasonably accurate, then we certainly have a late finishing of GJohn, based on testimony, some of which is based on memories of the day of Crucifixion.

Either way, there's certainly no reason for Mark, Matthew or Luke to apply, nor even Q, as far as I know.

edit. "mitigates"?

Pazuzu

http://www.thegodmovie.com/

The movie includes interviews with Robert Price and other NT scholars.

They played the movie a couple weeks ago on www.infidelguy.com

judge

But if this is the case who would have ben able to change every single copy of this gospel?

Who would have had the power to do this both in and outside the Roman Empire?

For this reason your idea sounds very unplausible.

Vorkosigan

This "it must be true or it's a conspiracy" idea is ridiculous. Here's a third option: evolution. GJohn has had several redactions. At each point, copyists have to make a choice about what they will retain, and the longer version is to be preferred. Naturally, over time, it will displace any other version, since its theology is so incredibly Catholic.

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

That would be Polycarp, not Porphyry.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Perhaps only the final version of the fourth gospel (with chapter 21) was actually published, in the fullest ancient sense of that word. The earlier versions might have been regarded as mere υπομνηματα, or notes, and might have easily been displaced even without the full pressure of orthodoxy.

Here is what the esteemed Galen, in the prologue to Concerning His Own Books, had to say about books of his that were circulated unofficially in different versions:

Why the many read my [books] as their own, you yourself know the reason, most excellent [κρατιστε] Bassus. For they were given to friends and disciples without inscription [χωρις επιγραφης], as nothing was for publication [ουδεν προς εκδοσιν], but were made for those who requested [δεηθεισιν] to have notes [υπομνηματα] of what they heard. So, when some of them died, those with them who had them and were pleased [αρεσθεντες] with them began to read [αναγινωσκον] them as their own. [....] ...having shared [κοινωνησαντων] them travelled to their own fatherland and, after passing some time, some here and others there began to make them into lectures [επιδειξεις]. In time, after they were all exposed, many inscribed [επεγραψαντο] my name on the repossessed [text]. And, having found that they differed from all the others, they carried them to me, encouraging me to rectify them. So since, as I said, they were not for publication [ου προς εκδοσιν], but were according to the habit and the need [εξιν τε και χρειαν] of those who requested [των δεηθεντων] them, it was likely at any rate that some be stretched out and others pressed together, and the interpretation [ερμευνειαν] and teaching [διδασκαλιαν] of the theorems should be either complete [τελειαν] or lacking [ελλιπη]. It was clear, at any rate, that those written from the things that were spoken [τοις ειρημενοις] would not have the completion of the teaching, nor would have been examined accurately [διηκριβωμενον], as they neither requested [δεομενων] nor were able to learn [μανθανειν] all things accurately [ακριβως] before having some habit [εξιν] in the essentials. These kinds of books [βιβλια] some who came before me wrote up as outlines [υποτυπωσεις], just as some wrote sketches [υπογραφας]. And others wrote introductions [εισαγωγας] or synopses [συνοψεις] or guides [υφηγησεις].

Note that people would constantly bring their bootleg versions to Galen himself for correction. Eventually the unofficial versions were by and large supplanted in the transmission.

Ben.