Ted Hoffman

Kirby stated in another thread:
The material you scanned at Ebla was very useful thank you. I however missed the titles of the books you excerpted them from. Maybe you could provide them?

Vinnie has all along argued in his methodologies that John is independent of the synoptics so this question was of interest to me especially with Vork stating that Crossan has argued, based on the intercalations seen in John and which seem to be derived from Mark, that John is not independent of Mark.

From Kirby's material, I gleaned the following (I claim none of the ideas as mine - my interest here is in summarizing and presenting the issues involved and the state of the question of John's relationship with the synoptics):

Bultmann carried out a thorough study of the Gospel of John which involved literary examination of sources (grundschrift) in the early 20th century and studied in detail, John's use of sources, "the presumably accidental disruption of the original textual order, and the (incorrect) restoration and editorial expansion of the text by an ecclesiastical redactor"

In his Source Theory, Rudolf Bultmann concealed four sources for John's gospel:

1. A written discourse (Ofrenbarungsreden) from which John wrote a vorlage in the prologue. This source is identifiable via its rhythmic structure, gnostic cast and semitic parlance. Bultmann argued that this Ofrenbarungsreden was used by John for Jesus' words.

2. A hypothetical semeia source for the narratives and the miracle stories.

3. A source that had the passion and resurrection narratives.

4. John himself whose hand he identifies through stylistic (semitisms etc), contextual and theological criteria.

Criticisms of Bultmanns Source Criteria

1. Its uclear whether Bultmann managed to derive a stylistic criteria from John to convincingly support his hypothesis. (Ruckstuhl)

2. Methodological problem: Bultman ascribes more stylistic passages to John while leaving the less stylistic ones to other sources (Ruckstuhl)

3. The stylistic characteristics are not uniquely John's as they appear elsewhere too. Thus Bultmann's style is arbitrary. (Ruckstuhl)

4. The verses in the Ofrenbarungsreden are of irregular length and rhythm.

5. No proof of existence of narrative sources, namely the semeia source.

6. Ruckstuhl subjected Bultmann's stylistic criteria to the style-statistical method developed by E.Schweizer. The result is that Johannine style, as identified by Bultmann, is scattered throughout the sources and thus no presence of a stylistic unity.

The other document (presumably newer):

More Recent Developments

Gardner Smith argues that similarities between John and the synoptics result from a shared oral as opposed to literary traditions - he argues that an oral source best explain's the agreements.

Frans Neirynck, among others have argued that "John's redaction history, esp. the points of contact between John and Mark, e.g. the PN, bespeak John's knowledge and use of that Gospel."

F. Lamar Cribbs has argued in his article St. Luke and the Johannine Tradition, JBL 1970, that 'Luke often differs from Mark (and usually from Matthew) precisely at points where John is at odds with Mark.

C.K. Barrett among others have inquired that 'if John knew the other gospels, why did he fail to make greater use of them?'. They have argued that there is simply not enough parallel material and the non-synoptic material, which makes the larger part of John, is extensive. Barrett has argued that 'the non-synoptic material is not sheer fabrication, but owes much to other sources'.

Hans Windisch, argues, against the classical traditional explanation, which is that John wrote in order to supplement, or perhaps correct other accounts, that John simply overlaps the others.

Windisch however abandoned the idea that John wrote independently of the others. He adopts the view that John wrote to displace the other gospels, because he found them to be inadequate vehicles of Christian proclamation as he understood it. So he ignored them and wrote authoritatively. The problem with this is that John never eplicitly polemicizes against the gospels, much less recognize their existence.

Thus far, it would seem, the alternatives are between independence or displacement.

The author then describes the available evidence regarding John and the synoptics which he breaks down as follows:
1. Common material, pericopes, sayings and stories.
2. The order of these materials in the gospels.

Common Content, common order and Geographical Notices

He refers to Morton Smith who expounds on the pericopes John shares with Mark and their order. In his article Mark 6:32-15:47 and John 6:1-19:42, SBL, the author says Morton Smith finds 12 common reports - the passion, whose order is basically the same, and other seven are in the same order. Of the five that are not, three (temple cleansing & the accompanying prophecy of destruction + the question about Jesus' authority) are found in the single cleansing pericope, which John places at the beginning of his gospel. The other two, plot against Jesus and anoiting at Bethany, are placed in John before the triumphal entry while in Mark, they are placed after.

Morton Smith argues that this difference is a result of the omission of the Lazarus cycle, with which in John they are associated.

Smith identifies 8 geographical notices which occur in the same relationship to parallel Mark and John (Mark 6:32/ John 6:1;Mark 6:45 / John 6:16-17;Mark 6:46/ John 6:15 ;Mark 6:54-5/ John 6:24-25;Mark 9:30-31 / John 7:1 ;Mark 10-11 / John 7:10;Mark 10:1/ John 10:40;Mark 10:32 / John 11:7-8.

To explain these commonalities, Smith proposes that a common source (an Urevangelium) in different Greek recensions underlies the greater part of Mark and John.

There is also evidence of verbatim agreement which are mentioned below.

Differences
1. Accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb.
2. The different passion narratives (vinnies thing about 1. Cup. 2. Flight. 3. Ground. 4. Interrogation. 5. Cross. 6. Drink. 7. Death)
3. Different itinerary of the public ministry of Jesus
4. No excorcisms in John
5. All healing stories have no clear parallel in Mark (the one healing story that is shared is an anomaly - a Q miracle story)

Verbatim agreements (strong evidence for John having used John or another synoptic)

1. John 20 and Luke 24,
2. Luke 24:12 which corresponds to John 20:3-10,
3. Luke 24:36 has a more extensive verbatim parallel to John 20:19
4. Luke 24:40 shows extensive verbatim agreement with John 20:20
5. Others: Mark 14:3 and John 12:3, Mark 2:9 and John 5:8

These verbatim agreements, the author argues 'suggest an element of textual fluidity' in matters of verbal agreement.

Written sources, rather than oral ones, better account for the verbatim agreement. Thus the verbatim agreements challenge the earlier arguments about oral sources between John and the synoptics.

Taking a redaction critical perspective, the author argues that John was the 'real redactor who worked with written sources and other traditions, which he did not fully agree, to produce a theologically sophisticated document embodying those very traditions but expressing a distinctly different point of view'.

Fortna suggests that the Gospel of signs was associated with the PN. The challenge, the author notes, is 'taking account of John's generally wide divergence from Mark in content and order (including Jesus' itinerary) as well as style'.

Latest Suggestions: Redaction-Critical Approach


The author states that it has been recently suggested that 'a redaction-critical perspective should be able to furnish decisive data for the solution of the problem of John and the synoptics'. He explains that the principle involved is clear-cut: "If elements of the synoptic, say, Matcan redaction, have found their way into John, then John must have known, not merely Marcan tradition, but the gospel of Mark itself."

The intercalation and interlamination of the trial before the Sanhedrin into the denial scene, the author writes, "is the work of Mark himself, not tradition. This being the case, the similar arrangement of those materials in John must be a consequence of John's knowledge of Mark rather than merely dependence upon a common tradition."

He mentions that scholars that have critically studied the PN have concluded that its Mark's own creation (he refers to E. Linnemann).

He adds that "if so (if Mark created the PN), and if there was no pre-Markan Passion Narrative but only isolated traditions, then a major underpinning of Johannine dependence is knocked loose. The PN as well as the gospel form, may then be seen to be Mark's invention, and other exemplars will be regarded and dependent on him".

The author comments that "the logic of this view of the evidence is eemingly impeccable".

Regarding the intercalation, he cites Perrin in Introduction, pp. 228-29: "A particular consideration is the fact that the trial before the High Priest (John 18:19-24) is set in the context of the denial by Peter (18:15-18,25-27), as it is also in the Gospel of Mark. But there is a strong case that Mark himself composed the account of the trial at night before Jewish authorities and then set it in the context of the story of Peter's denial. If this is so, the evangelist John must necessarily have known the gospel of Mark." Perrin cites the work of John R. Donahue Are You the Christ? The Trial and Narrative in the Gospel of Mark - which casts doubt on the existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative.

E.J. Pryke argues against the value of stylistic similarities and verbatim, stating that they make up a small percentage. He argues that common Gree words are those without which a story can scarcely be told.

I have not covered the historical perspective in this summary.

I hope this material will be useful as we examine the question of John's independence to the synoptics. I typed it in a hurry. All errors are mine.

What is a colophon? What are the colophon's in John?

Amaleq13

According to dictionary.com:

"An inscription placed usually at the end of a book, giving facts about its publication."

the_cave

This is very interesting.

The parallels between John and Mark essentially boil down to 1) the PN--or some form of it--and 2) most of or all of the signs in the "signs gospel".

Here's a possible solution to the relationship: the original Mark was a signs gospel-PN. John modified *this* document for his gospel, and a later author modified original Mark to produce our Mark.

Vorkosigan

Fabulous opening post, Jacob. Are you triplets or something? The amount of reading you do is phenomenal.

I was struck by this one:

Note that conservatives use that same argument against Q.

This could just as well be Luke using John, my personal view.

John 6 is pretty much decisive. Additionally, since Mark or his source created the annointing and entry stories out of the OT, the only answer is that John knows Mark or his source.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Thanks . I am beginning to have neck problems and back problems...and signs of the carpal tunnel syndrome...<whine> :devil1:
But they arent exactly the same - I mean the argument for the existence of Q is far much stronger. Bultmann's argument seemed ad hoc.

I think John's 'advanced' Christology and theological sophistication plus several layers of redaction places it later than Luke.
Luke copying John would mean Luke writing a 'dumbed down' version from John. Very unlikely.
I concur. I would like Vinnie to comment on this since he has been very vocal about John's independence of the synoptics.