Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zeichman · 04-19-2007, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

That is what Stevan Davies argues, IIRC; where does Goodacre agree with it? (I think that Goodacre has flirted with John knowing the gospel of Thomas.)

Ben.

Regarding gnosis' comment, Goodacre believes Thomas is, at least in part, familiar with the synoptic tradition.
I remember he said that he believes Thomas was earlier than John.
Gregory Riley's book about John, Thomas and the Resurrection (or via: amazon.co.uk) may interest you, gnosis.

Ben C Smith · 04-19-2007, 04:37 PM

On second thought, it may not be Meier who discusses the details of the Marcan passion narrative vis-a-vis John. If not, I cannot remember offhand who it was. I know Meier prefers the Johannine chronology.

Ben.

Toto · 04-19-2007, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

These books might be hard to get for me, ...

Psst - the first one is online. Click on the link.

S.C.Carlson · 04-19-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Goodacre argued Mark used Thomas. Not that he's correct, but I think Thomas was probably independent of the NT.

Not Goodacre, but Stevan L. Davies, Mark's Use of Thomas, Neotestamentica 30 (1996): 307-334.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson · 04-19-2007, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Regarding gnosis' comment, Goodacre believes Thomas is, at least in part, familiar with the synoptic tradition.
I remember he said that he believes Thomas was earlier than John.

I don't think that his position (at least anymore).

Stephen

gnosis92 · 04-19-2007, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Not Goodacre, but Stevan L. Davies, Mark's Use of Thomas, Neotestamentica 30 (1996): 307-334.

Stephen

I stand corrected thanks

gnosis92 · 04-19-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

I cannot give you a direct answer on the state of scholarships, but I can offer some thoughts on the issue.

There does not appear to be any direct literary borrowing. However, consider the popularity of the canonical synoptics even early on (Mk was used by Mt, Lk and Thomas; Mt was used by the Didache and Papias; all three achieved enough popularity to survive the tumultuous latter years of the first century). It seems to me that the author of the fourth Gospel, writing in the 90s, could hardly have been oblivious to his synoptic precursor Mark, composed more than two decades earlier. Given Matthew's quick inception, I suspect he knew of it, as well. Whether he had personally read either may never be known, but my suspicion is that he had seen at least one of them. And of course if he had, it would be expected that he drew on his memories thereof when writing his own narrative.

But he does not appear to have used them directly, as Matthew and Luke did with Mark.

If John did use an earlier literary source, the signs gospel (whose relationship with the synoptics appears to be independent) then there's even less evidence John needed the synoptics for his Gospel. Among the 7 miracles in signs that healing an official's son (4:46-54) and a lame man (5:2-9), feeding the multitude (6:1-14) giving sight to a blind man (9:1-8), and raising Lazarus (11:1-45) if we attribute this to a signs gospel, that was written independent of Mark/synoptics, these miracles all overlap with Mark and synoptics, then there's very little leftover in John to say he borrowed from synoptics. Which would be evidence for independence, if Signs gospel is independent.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/signs.html

Zeichman · 04-19-2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

I don't think that his position (at least anymore).

Stephen

You know him better than I do. But I was just thinking of this: http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2005/06/...on-thomas.html

Has he commented on it since then?

S.C.Carlson · 04-19-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

You know him better than I do. But I was just thinking of this: http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2005/06/...on-thomas.html

Has he commented on it since then?

I don't know if he's commented publicly on it since then, but he's told me recently that his thinking on that issue has changed.

Stephen

andrewcriddle · 04-20-2007, 10:04 AM

IF one holds with Bultmann and others that there was an original Gospel of John later redacted by the addition of John chapter 21 and various verses of futurist eschatology etc, then it is quite plausible to hold that original John is independent of the synoptics but that the 'ecclesiastical redactor' knew the synoptic tradition.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-19-2007, 04:37 PM	#12
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	On second thought, it may not be Meier who discusses the details of the Marcan passion narrative vis-a-vis John. If not, I cannot remember offhand who it was. I know Meier prefers the Johannine chronology. Ben.

04-20-2007, 10:04 AM	#20
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	IF one holds with Bultmann and others that there was an original Gospel of John later redacted by the addition of John chapter 21 and various verses of futurist eschatology etc, then it is quite plausible to hold that original John is independent of the synoptics but that the 'ecclesiastical redactor' knew the synoptic tradition. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.