The Gospel of John is causing me to lose my religion since my religion didn’t seem to mind canonizing the gospel of John despite the differences with the synoptic gospels.
1. The resurrection of Lazarus is missing in the synoptic gospels.
2. The woman caught in adultery is in the gospel of John but not in the synoptics, but you, Bart, said it wasn’t original to the gospel.
3. Before the last supper, Jesus insists this bread is his flesh which he will give for the life of the world. (Jn 6:51). The Synoptics does not show Jesus teaching about his flesh is bread before the Last Supper.
4. Before Abraham, I AM (jn 8:58) and I had glory with God before the world existed (Jn 17:5)
5. The Synoptics are happy during the first parts of the gospel: tell John the blind see the lame walk but Gospel of John shows early Jesus is the sacrificial lamb that takes away sins.
6. You must be born again before you see the kingdom vs You will see the kingdom coming on clouds.
What good scholarly books have you found on the differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels?
(question also posed to Bart)
I found this on amazon but I’m looking for a good scholarly treatment of this question.
dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Go-GOU9IPwVgBoI2_k9BP-kPyh2NFcjYgCfY-ZV4M4J606_dfwa589i8IfHk9sR0_BZdFy94nMZGzmIswRiI_TElwmqjbyq7QhULpf2CLpz8OSRKQDHJnH1hjPP01aqHKmjZe1Y8ERM6smznXrPId56Bc9PZkF0Bn0rG_k7ZTPbZ0bC6LKOT57Bglr9JaZHxJwvWeEEvoan2mVKsiNbgkQBftyA1N_FneEoSAOUni3c.Iaizd77ABSBKowsWIlxV_XcVx15qoIHWK7tpyuyiKeU&dib_tag=se&keywords=gospel+of+john+and+the+synoptic&qid=1724702096&sprefix=gospel+of+john+and+the+synoptics%2Caps%2C121&sr=8-9
… I’m looking for a good scholarly treatment of this question.
You’ll have to wait until January, but here you go.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I’m not familiar with Barker but Goodacre is a fine scholar and I assume he wouldn’t associate himself with the book if it wasn’t valuable. Goodacre has been threatening a tome about John himself. i
John does not attest the Synoptics on the 6 points I raised.
So Baker is wrong when he says
the last of the four, John, is dependent on all three Synoptics and was meant to be read alongside them.
John is an advertent or inadvertent attempt to destroy the credibility of the Synoptics.
That depends on what James W. Baker means by “literary dependence.”
That line came from the book’s description:
James W. Barker takes up these questions and reappraises the evidence. Drawing on his expertise in ancient compositional practices, he makes a persuasive case for a snowballing trajectory, whereby each canonical gospel drew upon other canonical gospels. Thus, Mark was written first; Matthew draws on Mark; Luke draws on Mark and Matthew; and the last of the four, John, is dependent on all three Synoptics and was meant to be read alongside them.
Now that you have that, what say you?
Option 1
Slavish following of all of the details from a prior document is one extreme end of the spectrum.
Option 2
But mere familiarity with, and even extensive departure from, previous material is the other end of the spectrum.
Conclusion and the answer to the question posed to you:
John is not Option 1.
John is an extensive departure from the Synoptics.
Bart’s reply to the original comment:
I give a fairly long disacussion of it in my textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction.
I would say, though, that a religion that requires every book of the Bible
say exactly the sme as every other book, or even to agree on every point,
is more like a kind of fundamentalism than like historical Christianity.
Steefen
One source furthest away from the life of the biblical Jesus says there was a resurrection of Lazarus
and three sources closest to the life of the Biblical Jesus say, I didn’t see THAT ! ! !
Fundamentalism has nothing to do with questions of historical accounts.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert