Loading...In my previous post I asked whether many of you were getting tired of this discussion of methods of analysis, in relationship to the Gospel of John. Almost everyone who replied wanted me to continue, and so I do! I move on to the question of whether redaction criticism can be useful for studying the Fourth Gospel. This will take two posts. Again, I am drawing from my textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction….
*********************************************************
The Gospel of John from a Redactional Perspective
As we have seen in our earlier discussions, redaction criticism works to understand how an author has utilized his or her sources. Scholars have successfully used the method with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, where we can posit two sources with reasonable certainty (Mark and Q). The method is somewhat more tenuous in the case of the Fourth Gospel, since this author’s sources are more difficult to reconstruct. Still, John must have derived his stories about Jesus from somewhere (assuming that he didn’t make them all up). What sources, then, may have been available to him?
One perennial question is whether John had access to and made use of the Synoptic Gospels. The question is somewhat thorny, and rather than delve into all of its complexities here, I will simply indicate why many scholars continue to be persuaded that he did not. As we have seen, the principal grounds for assuming that one document served as a source for another is their wide-ranging similarities: when they tell the same stories and do so in the same way, they must be literarily related to one another. Thus Matthew, Mark, and Luke must have sources in common because they agree with one another on a number of occasions, often word for word. This is not the case for the Fourth Gospel. As I have pointed out, most of John’s stories outside of the Passion narrative are found only in John, whereas most of the stories in the Synoptics are not found in John. If this author had used the Synoptics as sources, why would he have omitted so many of their stories? Or — to put the burden of proof in its proper place — why should someone think that John used the Synoptics as sources when they do not have extensive verbatim agreements, even in the stories that they happen to share?
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a member. If you don’t belong yet, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!
I have read the sections in your textbook that you are quoting and I still find these summaries to be quite helpful. When I read these sections in your textbook, I was fascinated with your discussion of the “literary seams.” So keep going. As you know, Spong covers some similar topics in his recent book on the Gospel of John.
I recall hearing someone suggest that the author of John may have been familiar with the Synoptics and their contents, but not mentioned them because he was sure his intended audience *also* already knew the stories included in them. Is that possible?
When I think about it…are *his* stories so different as to suggest he might have *disapproved of* the Synoptics?
Yes, both are possibilities. My view is that if someone thinks one document was a source for another, s/he bears the burden of proof. And I just don’t see the evidence leaning that way….
Just another late thought:
The blog archive is a real treasure. There is so much in it! I think it is absolutely fair to take a break from writing a new post whenever needed. You already do so much for us and your work capacity admirable. In addition, this will give us an excellent opportunity to explore past posts. Some old posts have like 72 comments! I think it would be interesting to re-post (?) those. They caused a lot of questions and polemic for a reason.
Have a successful week!
I am not getting tired of the discussion, which I find quite helpful in understanding the *historical* complexity and evolution of the written biblical documents.
However,….what I am seeking now is a comparative discussion of the *theologies* being presented in the biblical documents….what various groups at the time of the writing of the gospels (etc) believed to be true, controversies among the groups, how the idea of a primitive tribal god developed into what Jesus preached, the development of liturgies, doctrines, how the theologies evolved through time (let us say up to Constantine), how the oral transmission happened, any clues to the existence of very early writings even before Paul….and so on.
Even a discussion of how the many varied groups of Christians, all over the middle east (not just the Hellenistic groups) viewed the “supernatural” (since religion is a belief in the intervention of such into history) and how we can sort out probable fact from superstition.
I know that this is was out of your field (dealing with the *history* of the documents) but the immaterial (the ineffable spiritual dimension) is the core of what religion, belief, faith is all about…not just documents…IMO.
The video of your debater on proving the resurrection of Jesus *historically* prompts my thoughts here….of course, no one can prove such historically and you won the debate. But, your opponent, who said that *God* raised Jesus from the dead. as his closing point of proof, pointed to the crux of religious faith…belief in what can not be proven historically.
I am getting more interested in how these theologies developed.
In the ancient world, books were copied one at a time and distribution was haphazard at best.
–
Since the gospels were not considered scripture for a long time, do you think that all of the earliest copies were more or less revisions in which the copyist would add stories he knew, delete stories he didn’t agree with and make changes to the language to agree with his or her beliefs? Maybe some of the sources weren’t really sources but an accumulation in a text of similar stories from the oral tradition as copies were made.
No, I think most copyists of books are simply trying to copy the book, not necessarily produce a new edition of it.
If I recall correctly, you do believe that the author of the gospel of Mark was influenced by Pauline christianity. The only thing approaching literal agreement is the last supper. Indirect dependence can occur in many ways without word for word copying of a text in one’s possession. While I do not imagine that John could download a book from Amazon, as soon as a significant book, such as a gospel, began to circulate to other communities or made its way to a major population center, eg, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, copies could disseminate anywhere, with copies multiplying geometrically rather than arithmetically for a popular book. We know that Matthew and Luke both got their hands on the gospel of Mark rather soon. And accounts within these gospels would also spread by word of mouth in the partially itinerant churches we know from Paul’s letters and the Didache. I would not expect ‘John’ to have heard all that much of any one of the gospels circulating before his ‘final’ version began to circulate. Regardless of how much he had heard of other gospels that were circulating anonymously, I also would not expect ‘John’ to feel bound to incorporate anything he heard as authoritative. He obviously had his own point of view which seems to be have been dramatically different from any of the synoptic authors. The burden of proof can be borne by anyone who wants their view to be accepted. Proving literal direct dependence on one or more synoptic texts within ‘John’s own personal possession obviously cannot be done in this case, but that does not mean that one can therby appeal to ‘John’s gospel as a totally independent source when advancing historical claims without also assuming one’s own burden of proof for the view that John could not have been even indirectly dependent upon any part of any of the synoptic gospels.
My view is that if someone wants to argue that John had read the Synoptics, they need to show it, not assume it. I just don’t think the evidence heads in that direction.
Who said anything about John reading the synoptics? That would be direct dependence on a text. Neirynck presents the evidence well for this position and certainly does not merely assume it. But your use of independent attestation as part of your historical methodology assumes that ‘John’ could not have been even indirectly influenced by any part of any one of the synoptics. That has not been proven nor can it be proven. There is no evidence of what John did not or could not have known indirectly. Just because you are not convinced by the evidence of direct dependence does not mean that you can exclude the possibility of indirect dependence. You do not accept the burden of proof for one of your key methodological principles. Aside from the weakness of this methodological assumption for historical reconstruction, this also limits one’s ability to recognize greater creativity on the part of Mark in composing his gospel. Anything found in both Mark and John must have been earlier than Mark and could not have been created by Mark. This is backwards. The gospels are evidence of the beliefs of the contemporary communities of the gospel authors, including of course the beliefs and artistry of the authors. Good historical method can not go much further than speaking about the period for which we have evidence. We have good evidence about the authors of the texts, not of the subject of their text who belonged to a prior generation.
March 17. The traditional feast day of…St. Joseph of Arimathea!
Dr. Ehrman,
Have any NT textual criticism scholars ever proposed hypothetical readings of the “Q” source (I say hypothetical because I assume no actual manuscripts of it have ever been found) ? Put another way, how well understood is the deconstruction of Matthew and Luke into its sources that they can tell which material came from which source ?
Yes, indeed, there are several scholarly reconstructions of the contents of Q (I assume that’s what you’re asking).
Hi Bart, hope you and Sarah are well and starting to enjoy the Christmas celebrations, as much as we can.
I was having a discussion on this topic and talking about the various sources that might go to make up John. You mention how different writing styles can be evidence of different sources and then go on to mention how the Farewell Discourse may be 2 such sources.
Is there any evidence do you know of, that there are at least 2 or possibly 3 different authors in play here based of the different writing styles found in this section compared to the rest of the Gospel?
Thanks! Right: as much as we can! The different sources would have had different authors, but it is almost always thought that the final product was the work of one author/editor.
Thanks for responding.
Yes, I guess we can assume that the author wrote out the text for the final version but he would have had two options, I think. Either to simply copy the text from the source(s) available in which case, we would notice the difference in writing style just as we do when scribes copy the gospels decades late. Or he would have reworded the sources and incorporated into his own style.
What do you think was happening with these Farewell Discourse sources and if the second case, how would we know it was difference source?
He appears to have two different forms of the discourse that he has combined. It’s hard to know whether the stylistic similarities go back to the editor himself or to someone who produced two different versions of the same account, so that the similarities are due to teh ultimate source rather than the redactional activity of the editor.
Thanks for responding Bart and also sorting out the email. Arrived big and bold this time.
Sorry, I’m a bit confused now. Let’s assume for a moment there are 2 different forms of the Farewell Discourse plus the surrounding text of the Gospel itself. Are you saying that these are stylistically the same or have historians discovered that there are stylistic differences?
If not, why might that be?
No major stylistic differences. I thought I explained — I remember trying to! Either the editor who put them together smoothed out the stylistic differences or the two sources that produced them reproduced many of the stylistic features of the stories as they inherited them so that the similarities go back to the source of the two soruces.
Thanks Bart. Have great day.
BTW, no email again. I thought this was cracked but apparently not.
Sorry, I lost track of the conversation. I don’t know what “no email” is referring to.
Sorry if I was not clear.
When one of the members makes a comment, there are options to click so that we receive an email to say someone has commented on the thread. I set this up when I uploaded my first post. However, I did not get the subscription email when you replied to my first post. That’s why I mentioned it.
However, when I put up my second post, the email to say you responded, arrived so I assumed you had fixed something. Problem was, the email didn’t arrive for the next response but it did for this last one.
As I said, this never failed on the old site but seems a bit flakey now.
I’ll look into it. Or have Steven do so. I have never received those emails since I’m an administrator, and no one had mentioned it to me. Thanks,
Thanks.
This one came through OK, BTW.
Have a great New Year and all the best for 2021.