it is excellent
I sort of suspected he had rather more to say than he let on in that interview.
Goodacre expects his book to become available in late Summer or early Autumn of this year.
That’s a long time to wait. I suppose in the interim, I’ll make do gleaning what I can from ** you do not have permission to see this link ** on the topic from 2021.
The wheels of the publishing industry turn slowly.
Meanwhile let’s move our chairs a little closer to the fire and ask some questions.
Does Goodacre accept gJohn as a unified composition? Seems to me there are problems with this view. Aside from the messy textual disruptions there is more than one Christology on display in the text. Only part of the text evinces a high Christology and the relationship between the famous Logos “hymn” in chapter one and the rest of the text is not absolutely clear. One doesn’t have to follow Father Brown and posit some hypothetical Johannine community to wonder. Sooo…my question to Prof Goodacre is, does your view assume that gJohn must have been a unified composition?
In some of the discussions I’ve seen both Johannine similarities to Mark and Johannine differences from Mark used as evidence of dependence. So my question here is, what would have to be different about gJohn to make you think it is not dependent on Mark? (I sniff a bit of circularity in the wind.)
By late first century or early second, wouldn’t we expect a fairly consistent narrative about Jesus to have spread among the Jesus community? Would the writer(s) of gJohn have even needed the synoptics at that point?
If John knew the synoptics what about the stuff he leaves out? Now we can’t possibly read minds or suss out motivations but it certainly makes me wonder. For example, why wouldn’t John be all over the episode of the Transfiguration? That seems right in his wheelhouse.
GJohn is often interpreted as a “supplement” to the synoptics. Yet why would you supplement texts you explicitly contradict? Matthew and Luke had no hesitation in correcting Mark explicitly.
If gJohn had a dependence on the synoptics then it seems certain conclusions can be drawn. The biggie I guess is that there was not a group of independent literary sources, themselves derived from older oral sources, but one literary chain of dependency. Any oral sources must be completely hypothetical because even if they existed they were lost. Then, whether gJohn knew Mark or not, he is willing to change fundamental parts of the narrative simply to make theological points. For example, moving the cleansing of the Temple, and changing the day of the crucifixion. Late in the first century, or early in the second, was the tradition that mercurial still? And can we assume Mark didn’t change his sources as well?
By late first century or early second, wouldn’t we expect a fairly consistent narrative about Jesus to have spread among the Jesus community? Would the writer(s) of gJohn have even needed the synoptics at that point?
I think you have to ask, to what degree are the synoptics merely restating prior tradition (that continued to spread both through them and independently of them) and to what degree is Mark forging that tradition (which goes on to spread through Mark’s popularity and influence).
If they are just putting an independent tradition to paper, and that tradition does spread, then Johannine similarities can be explained without dependence. If they forged that tradition, Johannine similarities show some sort of dependence on them.
Prof Hugo Mendez also has a book about the gospel of John coming out this summer. It’s been ages since I spent any serious time in John’s gospel. I’ve always been a Mark guy. Looks like this will be the Summer of John!
If they [the synoptic gospel writers] are just putting an independent tradition to paper, and that tradition does spread, then Johannine similarities can be explained without dependence. If they forged that tradition, Johannine similarities show some sort of dependence on them.
An important point, well worth ruminating over. Our lack of knowledge about the provenance of these texts means that any position we take requires a certain foundation of presuppositions in order to proceed. This is why I wondered if Goodacre associates a belief in the unity of the text with the idea of dependence. And asked what for him in the text would argue against dependence? I hope he considers these aspects in his book.
I am persuaded by the point of view (lately represented by Robyn Faith Walsh) that sees the gospel writers, especially Mark, as elite creative composers. Nothing would surprise me less than to find out that Mark invented both the episode of the Transfiguration and the Empty Tomb. The former functions as the fulcrum and center of gravity of the narrative and the latter seems to exist primarily to illustrate a theological point of view (as does the use of Psalm 22 in the crucifixion narrative). This is literature. Not reportage. I suspect what the early faith tradition consisted of were not various and diverse stories passed down by word of mouth but rather credos and faith statements like what we see in Paul. These would have served as an exoskeleton of tradition.
Literary dependence would explain a lot. But it also raises a boatload of questions.
What are the points in John with the lowest christology?
Well the first comes almost immediately in chapter one right after the Logos passage and is rather overshadowed by it. Starting with the testimony of John the Baptist and then through to the calling of the first disciples.
And John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Chosen One.”
Note what this implies. Jesus did not have the Spirit at one point. The Spirit can come upon other people but in Jesus’ case it remained with him. And then…
Nathanael replied, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
And he said to him, “Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”
Here the disciples expect the Messiah. Jesus refers to the Son of man in the third person. We are definitely ensconced in Markan territory. (And if Goodacre is right, perhaps we are!)
Then note that in virtually all the “signs” episodes Jesus repeatedly distinguishes between himself and the Father. In his meeting with the Samaritan woman Jesus identifies with, and allows her to identify him with, the Messiah.
Then note the passage beginning with 5:19 to the end of the chapter where Jesus specifically describes his authority.
I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
I would question even in chapter ten if Jesus is really claiming to be equal to God ontologically. Perhaps he simply means there is a unity of purpose and intent? Anyway seems to me none of this reaches the level of the Logos passage where the logos is a divine emanation.
His book claims John had an awareness of the synoptics. Its inclusion and relevance to the synoptic problem becomes unavoidable. If you want to discuss the possibility of John knowing the synoptics you have to discuss the effect this would have on the synoptic problem. Otherwise you’ll just be ignoring relevant evidence.
My essential point is not to deny that the author may have utilized some older sources in addition to the synoptic gospels, but even if he did, he created a new paradigm that does have an over-riding theological unity.
Well the seams are still showing. I will have a harder time accepting a unified text than synoptic influence. I definitely look forward to Mendez’ book. I hope he doesn’t just assume a unified text but discusses the issue at length.
As I wrote earlier folks who detect a synoptic influence point to both similarities and differences to bolster their view. Similarities mean John is “supplementing” the synoptics. Differences “correct” them. Well…ok. But what then would demonstrate independence?
In all that synoptic material John couldn’t find even a single line to copy? All it would have taken is one verbatim quote. Just one.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)