I don’t how extensively Prof Ehrman will get into this part of it but the most contentious part of the Mendez article is the questioning of the existence of the so-called “Johannine community”.  It has had its occasional critic but has been a scholarly staple since Raymond Brown did his work on the gospel of John and the letters.

“If we can no longer reconstruct the external world of the Johannines from their narrative worlds, a new history of these texts must be written. That history should begin with a single individual: an author who drew on various sources, including the Synoptics, to compose a new gospel. His knowledge of the Synoptics indicates …”

Here the circle closes and all the oxygen is extruded from the room.  You may assume John knew the synoptics and go on from there.  Or you may assume he did not and go on from there.  What you may not do is know whether John knew the synoptics or not.

My point of view is that he probably did not only because he never quotes them or refers to them directly.   Folks who think John knew them point to passages that are interpreted to be responses to the synoptics.  In other word John is riffing off the synoptics without quoting them or directly referring to them.   

We don’t know.  We’ll never know.  Everyone acknowledges that fact but that doesn’t prevent imaginative speculations.  In a field with a dearth of primary sources and a surfeit of loose ends the temptation to play “connect the dots” is apparently well-nigh irresistible. 

There are a lot of blank spaces on our maps and we must learn to live with that.

If John had no knowledge of any of the synoptic gospels, then all the points in common are independently attested, derived from pre-Markan traditions (or unknown texts), and thus more likely to be based on the some form of memory and legend. 

If John had no knowledge of the synoptic gospels it would mean that John stood in relation to his sources as Mark did to his.  It’s not inconceivable that the pool of stories available to Mark and John overlapped to some degree. But it’s also clear from the special sources in Matthew and Luke that there were pools of stories exclusive to each gospel writer.  And we should take seriously the diversity and relative isolation of many of these early Christian groups.  If it seems bizarre that the writer of John would not have been exposed to Mark then consider the fact that the writer of Luke/Acts, devoting an entire book to the exploits of the apostle Paul seems not to know Paul’s own letters, since he ascribes to Paul views that contradict the views expressed in the authentic letters and offers a timeline that contradicts the one given in Paul’s correspondence. 

Literary dependence or secondary aurality (orality) puts more emphasis on the potential literary creativity of the authors of the gospels, especially Mark and John, then Luke and Matthew. These are real texts that can be analyzed on their own terms. I would think an ‘historical minimalist’ would appreciate the latter perspective. 

I’m not sure I agree that Literary dependence or secondary aurality (orality) puts more emphasis on the potential literary creativity of the authors of the gospels…  But I have to confess the part that interests me most is the point at which it becomes time to write it down, the transition from oral to literary.  I suspect that John had a longer literary gestation period than Mark did.

Aside from general, methodological perspectives, have you ever done or read a comprehensive accounting of all of the points of commonality between John and the synoptics? 

I have read a bit but not systematically.  I should point out the fact I have not been convinced does not mean I can’t be convinced.  I’m not wedded to one position.  Sooo…can you recommend a comprehensive accounting of all of the points of commonality between John and the synoptics ?  If I’ve read it fine, if not all the better! 

Hey Robert I have meant to respond before this but since Prof Ehrman brought up the subject of John I was waiting to see where he lands.  I’ll have more to say.