Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 02-26-2003, 11:00 PM

http://www.acfaith.com/gjohn.html

Here I take a look at the Synoptic Gospels and compare them to the Gospel of John. I conclude that the syaings material of GJohn differs so substantially from that of the synoptics that we must choose one over the other. The majority of exegetes have chosen the synoptic portrait and I side with them. The sayings material in Gjohn reflects later theological developments. Parables, miracles, exorcisms, the "I am sayings", John the Baptist in the Gospels, the temple cleansing and more is discussed inside.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan · 02-28-2003, 05:27 AM

Vinnie: what actually is it you are defending here? The historicity of one or the other? Their independence? The theological implications of one or the other?

Vorkosigan

Old Man · 02-28-2003, 06:48 AM

Could the real truth be that the synoptics were well known to the author of John's gospel, and that John's gospel was purposely written to present Jesus in a different light, but equally valid, with a greater emphasis on teaching.

Kosh · 02-28-2003, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Old Man
Could the real truth be that the synoptics were well known to the author of John's gospel, and that John's gospel was purposely written to present Jesus in a different light, but equally valid, with a greater emphasis on teaching.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that he made a bunch of it up.

Vinnie · 02-28-2003, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Vinnie: what actually is it you are defending here? The historicity of one or the other? Their independence? The theological implications of one or the other?

Vorkosigan

Neither, just that GJohn does not tell us very much about the historical Jesus. I think we must stick primarily to the synoptic Gospels if we want to try to learn about the historical Jesus. Obviously I'm not defending anything new here

I'll build off that when discussing the I am sayings and such later on.

And for the other questions, I view John mainly as independent of the synoptic Gospels.

Old Man · 02-28-2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that he made a bunch of it up.

I suppose what is slightly purturbing is that neither the synoptics nor John's gospel acknowledge each other's existence, which strongly suggests John's gospel is a completely original work, and that John did not have the synoptic gospels before him when he wrote it.

But a "bunch up" may be premature. As John's gospel concludes:

Jhn 21:25 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.

Vinnie · 02-28-2003, 09:09 AM

In John, historicity has been largely covered by revelation and post-Easter understanding about Jesus. As a Christian I consider all that good and valid but when I look at the Gospel of John with critical-historical lenses, I know that most of the sayings material in GJohn cannot be taken as coming from Jesus of Nazareth 60-70 years earlier.

For me, Jesus is the way the truth and the life even if he never said exactly that or the other things Johh attributes to him.

And lest we fall victim to naive argumentation, the author of GJohn is not "lying"

Vinnie

Old Man · 02-28-2003, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
In John, historicity has been largely covered by revelation and post-Easter understanding about Jesus. As a Christian I consider all that good and valid but when I look at the Gospel of John with critical-historical lenses, I know that most of the sayings material in GJohn cannot be taken as coming from Jesus of Nazareth 60-70 years earlier.

How do you know it was 60-70 years earlier?

Irenaeus (AD 120-190)

Irenaus was a pupil of Polycarp, a disciple of John, records that:

'Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.'

Vinnie · 02-28-2003, 11:57 AM

I directly critiqued that idea in the paper. If Mark (for Peter), Matthew and John are all "eyewitness" type Gospels then we might as well all become HJ agnostics :

Quote:

This lack of material in GJohn is all the more stranger if a person was to accept more conservative views on Gospel authorship. If both Matthew and John represent eyewitness accounts and Mark is basically Peter�s transcribed account, we have a very serious difficulty here! Left with such contradictory �eyewitness accounts� we might as well all become HJ agnostics! It is very strange that John would leave out virtually all references to what Matthew and Peter considered to be the central and driving factor of Jesus� ministry!

As second and third generation documents the Gospels make much more sense.

I also had this at the beginning regarding the temple cleansing:

Quote:

All four Gospels record this incident but in GJohn the �temple cleansing� incident occurs at the beginning of Jesus� ministry whereas in the SynG it occurs towards the end. Compare Mark 11:15-18, Matthew 21:10-17 and Luke 19:45-48 with John 2:12-17. Some pious apologists have suggested that Jesus may have cleansed the temple twice, once at the beginning of his ministry and once towards the end. Unfortunately, scholars have long since recognized that we do not have eye-witness reports of Jesus� ministry that are chronologically narrated. As Raymond Brown said,

�The recognition that the evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry is important for understanding the differences among the Gospels. In the older approach, wherein the evangelists themselves were thought to have seen what they reported, it was very difficult to explain differences among their Gospels. How could eyewitness John (chap 2) report the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of the ministry and eyewitness Matthew (chap. 21) report the cleansing of the Temple at the end of the ministry? In order to reconcile them, interpreters would contend that the Temple-cleansing happened twice and that each evangelist chose to report only one of the two instances. However, if neither evangelist was an eyewitness and each had received an account of the Temple-cleansing from an intermediate source, neither one (or only one) may have known when it occurred during the public ministry. Rather than depending on a personal memory of events, each evangelist has arranged the material he received in order to portray Jesus in a way that would meet the spiritual needs of the community to which he was addressing the Gospel. Thus the Gospels have been arranged in logical order, not necessarily in Chronological order. The evangelists emerge as authors, shaping, developing, pruning the transmitted Jesus material, and as theologians, orienting that material to a particular goal.� [Intro NT, pp.109-110]

With that being said, I will not be entertaining apologetical scenarios such as a double temple cleansing one which usually stem from an acritical meshing of �various texts, dubious exegesis, and more than a little imagination�. Interpreters agree that the authors placed the temple cleansing incident where they did for theological reasons. As Paula Fredriksen noted, �In Mark, it sets up the passion; in John it serves as a vehicle for Christology� [Jesus Nazareth p230]. Its �Mark�s finale and John�s debut�. Most interpreters have favored the synoptic portrait and tied in the temple cleansing with Jesus� death.

I don't have time to get into Gospel authorship at this moment. Sanders and Davies offered a short and decent discussion on the issue in Studying the Synoptic Gospels.

But why should I trust Irenaeus here? If all you got is a 100 years after the fact attestation from Irenaeus here it will not fly. Does any other Christian mention the gospels by name up until this point?

Its very hard to believe that these eyewitness accounts were not named and never mentioned as such until the late second century. Why would Christians virtually supress such knowledge for almost a century? The Papias reference has certain problems with it as it is often mistakenly used.

Why these names were chosen is all pretty explainable (yes, even for the insignificant guy named Mark, the tax-collector Matthew and Luke-companion of Paul).

Vinnie

Gooch's dad · 02-28-2003, 11:57 AM

Old Man, look at the times you're talking about here. Irenaeus was writing in about 180 CE. You're trying to get us to believe that he was only 2 removed from a disciple of Jesus?

This is like me writing a document in 1980, claiming to be a student of Teddy Roosevelt, who was himself a student of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was born in 1809, so he was 21 in 1830.

These are analogous dates to someone writing in 180 CE (Irenaeus) claiming to be a pupil of someone who was active in around 120 CE (Polycarp) who claimed to be a disciple of someone who knew Jesus (died in roughly 30 CE).

Get the idea here? I have no reason to believe that Irenaeus had that level of knowledge about early 1st century events.

02-26-2003, 11:00 PM	#1
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Gjohn vs Synoptics http://www.acfaith.com/gjohn.html Here I take a look at the Synoptic Gospels and compare them to the Gospel of John. I conclude that the syaings material of GJohn differs so substantially from that of the synoptics that we must choose one over the other. The majority of exegetes have chosen the synoptic portrait and I side with them. The sayings material in Gjohn reflects later theological developments. Parables, miracles, exorcisms, the "I am sayings", John the Baptist in the Gospels, the temple cleansing and more is discussed inside. Vinnie

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

02-28-2003, 05:27 AM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Vinnie: what actually is it you are defending here? The historicity of one or the other? Their independence? The theological implications of one or the other? Vorkosigan

02-28-2003, 06:48 AM	#3
Old Man Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 188	Could the real truth be that the synoptics were well known to the author of John's gospel, and that John's gospel was purposely written to present Jesus in a different light, but equally valid, with a greater emphasis on teaching.

02-28-2003, 09:09 AM	#7
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	In John, historicity has been largely covered by revelation and post-Easter understanding about Jesus. As a Christian I consider all that good and valid but when I look at the Gospel of John with critical-historical lenses, I know that most of the sayings material in GJohn cannot be taken as coming from Jesus of Nazareth 60-70 years earlier. For me, Jesus is the way the truth and the life even if he never said exactly that or the other things Johh attributes to him. And lest we fall victim to naive argumentation, the author of GJohn is not "lying" Vinnie

02-28-2003, 11:57 AM	#10
Gooch's dad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison WI USA Posts: 3,508	Old Man, look at the times you're talking about here. Irenaeus was writing in about 180 CE. You're trying to get us to believe that he was only 2 removed from a disciple of Jesus? This is like me writing a document in 1980, claiming to be a student of Teddy Roosevelt, who was himself a student of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was born in 1809, so he was 21 in 1830. These are analogous dates to someone writing in 180 CE (Irenaeus) claiming to be a pupil of someone who was active in around 120 CE (Polycarp) who claimed to be a disciple of someone who knew Jesus (died in roughly 30 CE). Get the idea here? I have no reason to believe that Irenaeus had that level of knowledge about early 1st century events.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.