Robert
One aspect of this discussion pertains to whether or not the author of the gospel of John might have been familiar with any or all of the synoptic gospels.

Another issue is whether or not we can speak of the gospel of John as a kind of non-pseudoepigraphic forgery, in that it contains an implicit literary deceit that at least part of its contents are dependent upon a beloved disciple and perhaps other disciples who were eye-witnesses of Jesus from the very beginning, with the beloved disciple actually writing some of it.

Bart disagrees with both of these points.

Steefen making an attempt to understand the above

Bart disagrees with these two points:

1) John was familiar with one or more, if not all, of the synoptic gospels.

The reason for the confusion is that Robert is counting Point #1 which is not decisive. His Point #1 is not a) John was familiar or b) John was not familiar.

Earlier, Robert says there was a long-standing acceptance that John was familiar.
In the same paragraph, Robert says the long-standing acceptance eroded.

The paragraph ends:
But those who try and develop scholarly approaches to reconstructing an historical Jesus still routinely assume that John represents an independent witness to a pre-synoptic tradition, eg, John P. Meier & our own beloved Bart Ehrman.

So,
1) According to John Meier and Bart Ehrman, John was not familiar with one, more, or all of the synoptics BECAUSE there was a Johannine community with their own Oral Tradition that fed into the gospel of John.

So, it seems I understand the statement correctly: Bart disagrees that John was familiar with …

Furthermore, Bart disagrees with this point:
2) John is a piece of writing falsely ascribed to the beloved disciple

The confusion is again due to Point #2 being open-ended. Point #2 is not a) John is falsely ascribed to the beloved disciple or b) John is not falsely ascribed to the beloved disciple.

So let’s unpack Robert’s comment.

He says Hugo Mendez challenges/says, no, there wasn’t a Johannine community.

Johannine Community does not mean a community with their own Oral Tradition that fed into the gospel of John. Apparently, Johannine Community means one based on the gospel of John. That gospel contrasts disciples of Moses (Jews) and disciples of Jesus (Christians and Hellenists who have moved away from Temple Judaism). Background information at: ** you do not have permission to see this link **

Wait a second, this may be what Robert is saying:

Robert’s Point 1: is not John was familiar with at least one of the Synoptics. It is there was no beloved disciple who wrote that gospel.
Robert’s Point 2: is there wasn’t a Johannine Community.

No, we’re back to three points
1) John was familiar with at least one of the Synoptics
2) John is partly falsely ascribed to the beloved disciple
3) There was no Johannine Community

Robert, what are you saying?

When the Gospel of John was finally completed, why can we not say, there was a community that preferred that gospel over the three that came before?

John may not have been aware of the synoptics but the reader community of the Gospel of John could have been aware of Mark or all three.

Robert
2. Pretty much all critical scholars would agree with this. My point is more specific. Hugo Mendez and a few others (myself included) think that an author of the fourth gospel purposefully created the illusion that his fictional/idealized character, the beloved disciple (and perhaps a few other early disciples), were responsible for the stories contained in the fourth gospel. The author of John 21 goes so far as to claim that the beloved disciple was even the one wrote these things (21,24 ὁ γράψας ταῦτα). I agree with Neirynck that the author of John 21 was also the author of the preceding chapters as his own epilogue to his entire work. Mendez and most others think that John 21 was probably added on by a later writer.

Steefen
What?

Let me see, here.

It is not possible that the Beloved Disciple wrote all of John, according to most critical scholars.

Who was the Beloved Disciple? Four views are held:

1. He was not a particular disciple of Jesus, a man of flesh and blood like Peter, but an ideal figure representing any true disciple of Christ. It is, however, difficult to dismiss the vivid references of the Beloved Disciple in this way. If it can be done with him, why not with Peter or with Jesus Himself?

2. He was Lazarus, of whom it is said three times in the gospel of John that Jesus loved him (** you do not have permission to see this link **). In support of this view it is argued that the home of Lazarus was in Bethany, a suburb of Jerusalem, to which he could easily have taken the mother of Jesus at the request of Jesus. Against the view is the fact that nowhere outside this gospel are Peter and Lazarus as closely associated as Peter and the Beloved Disciple are in John’s gospel.

3. He was a Jerusalem disciple of Jesus connected with the high priest. The chief reason given for this view is that he appears only in Jerusalem and after the Resurrection, and since the gospel centers chiefly around Jerusalem, it is unlikely that a Galilean fisherman like John could have been the writer.

4. He was John the apostle. Both internal and external support is given for this view. He must have been one of three apostles who are described in the gospels as having been particularly close to Jesus—Peter, James, and John. He cannot have been Peter, with whom he is contrasted (** you do not have permission to see this link **), as Peter and the beloved disciple do in the fourth gospel.

The constant tradition of the Early Church was that the name of the Beloved Disciple was John. Irenaeus (Her. 3. 1. 1), Polycrates (Euseb. Hist. 3. 31; 5. 24), the 2nd cent. Acts of John, and Origen (Euseb. Hist. 6. 25. 9) are explicit about this.

Bibliography F. Godet. Commentary on John, I (1886), 190-193; J. H. Bernard, Commentary on John, I (1928), xxxiv-xxxvii; M. C. Tenney, John, The Gospel of Belief (1948), 280-282, 299-303.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Back to Robert

It is not possible that the Beloved Disciple wrote all of John, according to most critical scholars.

An author of the fourth gospel purposefully created the illusion that his fictional/idealized character, the beloved disciple (and perhaps a few other early disciples), were responsible for the stories contained in the fourth gospel.

The author of John 21 was also the author of the preceding chapter but Hugo thinks Chapter 21 was added later.

Steefen
Looking at the last verses of John 20, it does seem possible that John could end with John 20.

Anyway, the point Robert has made was the Gospel of John including Chapter 21 could have been written by one author, but not the beloved disciple because he was fictional.

The beloved disciple was fictional needs explaining because then, there would have been only 11 disciples.

Are you saying it is fictional that one of the 12 were called the beloved disciple but there still were 12 discicples?

Back to the major point: Did John know Mark, Matthew, or Luke?

The raising of Lazarus is not included in Mark, Matthew, or Luke.
Did the author of John know this? I think he did.

Robert
The author of the fourth gospel refers infrequently to the twelve (6,67.70 20,24) and nowhere gives a list of the names of all twelve disciples so he may have wanted his readers to presume that this idealized beloved disciple was one of the twelve.

Steefen
In John, the beloved disciple was at the last supper. Was that only Jesus and the 12 (maybe some servants)?

Please clarify the definition of Johannine Community.

– a community before the gospel of John was written, maybe even before AD70
or
– a community after the gospel of John was written

Hugo
the “Johannine community”—the hypothetical setting in which the Gospel and Epistles of John were written

Steefen
1) a community before the gospel of John was written, maybe even before AD70 (such that they created a problem in synagogues)
2) a community that helped develop the Gospel of John, as Hugo says
3) a community after the gospel of John was written

Hugo
the “Johannine community”—the hypothetical setting in which the Gospel and Epistles of John were written …

Source: Robert’s link to a Bart Ehrman blog post
This one: ** you do not have permission to see this link **

Daniel Boyarin of UC Berkeley at the 2016? biannual Nathaniel W. Taylor Lecture in Theology at the Yale Divinity School

Wikipedia

The relation between 1 Enoch and the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** to consider these parts as expression of the mainstream, but not-Qumranic, essenic movement. The main peculiar aspects of the not-Qumranic units of 1 Enoch are the following:

• a Messiah called “Son of Man”, with divine attributes, generated before the creation, who will act directly in the final judgment and sit on a throne of glory (1 Enoch 46:1–4, 48:2–7, 69:26–29).

Steefen
Then Bible commentaries probably SHOULD reference the Book of Enoch as well as Daniel when the gospels speak of the Son of Man.

Anyone care to comment?