Duvduv

I have read that it appears that the author of GJohn did not have access to GMatt and GLuke but only to GMark.

If that is so, then why are there so many stories in GMark that do not appear in GJohn, including the Last Supper? Did he have his own "traditions" that he consider to prevail over anything he saw in GMark, or accepted only those things in GMark confirmed by his own other tradition?

The primary common events in GMark and GJohn are:
The Baptist
The Centurion healing
Nazareth
The Blind Man
Who is Jesus
THe Entry to Jerusalem
The Moneychangers
The Temple thrown down
The Betrayal, Crucifixion, Empty Tomb and appearance before the 11 disciples.

aa5874

gJohn's Jesus is remarkably different to gMark's Jesus.

gJohn's Jesus is GOD the Creator, the Word.

gMark's Jesus is a Phantom.

la70119

gMark does not have any post-ressurection appearances, period. The resurrection is to be ASSUMED by gMark's reader.

Duvduv

I know that. But that was not the point I was making about the relationship between GMark and GJohn.

Doug Shaver

I haven't done any in-depth study of the relationship between John and the synoptics, but the prevailing scholarly opinion as I understand it is that John did not use Mark as a basis for his narrative the way Matthew and Luke did. This doesn't mean, though, he had no access to any of them. I don't know any reason to suppose he couldn't have had his own copy of Mark but just more or less ignored it. Obviously, he had to have gotten the basic outline of the story from somewhere, and if his was the last to be written, then that outline would have been common knowledge in whatever Christian community John belonged to. For a long time, though, I've been intrigued by the possibility that John's gospel might have been the first one written. I'm a long way from making up my mind about it, but I've yet to see a killer argument against it.

Duvduv

My understanding is that because neither GMark nor GJohn have a nativity story, that this suggests (among other things) that GJohn used it as the basis for that gospel. The usual argument for GMark to be the first gospel includes the fact that it is the shortest and most simplified.

aa5874

Well, as soon as you do an in-depth study of the relationship between John and the Synoptics the KILLER arguments against an early gJohn will be exposed.

If gJohn was already known and circulated in antiquity then the short-ending gMark would be OBSOLETE before it was written.

In gJohn Jesus told people publicly that he was GOD and that he came to die for the Sins of All mankind but in gMark Jesus did NOT even tell his own disciples he was Christ. It was Peter who told Jesus he was Christ and immediately Jesus told the disciples NOT to tell any human being such a thing.

Sheshbazzar

When the tale is mythological, the writers are free to select whatever elements or sources they wish, and to change, or to embellish the story with as much additional fictional material or detail as they please.

John's mythological tale was never under any onus to agree with those mythological tales produced by Mark, Matthew, or Luke. It was composed for the pleasing and satisfaction a much latter audience in possession of highly evolved christological expectations.

Unless one is a die-hard Christian believer there is no sense in, and nothing to be gained by attempting to reconcile the various gospels.

Duvduv

Why would GJohn not have wanted to include the Last Supper in his story unless perhaps he did not in fact know about it?

I also note all those sermons contained in GJohn that are not found in the synoptics. So my first thought is that the author of GJohn had other sources, and considered those sources to prevail if they conflicted with stories in the synoptics.

This would presumably also apply to the synoptics themselves in cases such as parables in Matthew that do not appear in the other gospels, or parables in GLuke that don't appear in Matthew or Mark.

In the chart of comparisons I am looking at, there are no elements that appear ONLY in GMark and in no other gospel.
http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/gospels/index.htm.

aa5874

Well, if you do a study of gJohn it will be seen that the author was completely aware of the Synoptic type Jesus story because he attempted to remove many of the problematic passages in the Synoptic story.

gJohn is a "theologically corrected" gospel.

For example, the supposed soon coming Apocalypse and the so-called failed prophecies of Jesus in the Synoptics cannot be found anywhere in gJohn.

Also in the Synoptics, Jesus is Terrified and asked that "his cup be removed".

Mark 14But in gJohn Jesus made a 600 word prayer and BEGS his Father God to Crucify him NOW [Glorify him] and BOASTS of his accomplishments.

John 17 It would appear that the author of gJohn was completely aware of the problems with the Synoptic Jesus and attempted to make Improvemets and DECLARED his Jesus was God the Creator. See John 1.1