But I think you see the problem here as well as I do. These are short, pithy, memorable Jesus sayings. Just the sort of thing we can imagine being passed along in an oral tradition. When you weigh them against the reams of material not present in John, like say the Lord’s Supper, they are much less impressive. This is a problem I think with Goodacre’s point of view, as well as with Robyn Faith Walsh as well. Must we assume that the only sources John had about Jesus were literary? (Walsh is forced into this position. She has the writer of Acts knowing only Paul’s letters although he certainly doesn’t write like he knows them.) If we assume John has any extra-literary sources then the idea of dependence has a problem.
These are short, pithy, memorable Jesus sayings. Just the sort of thing we can imagine being passed along in an oral tradition.
Something of an aside, but I’m intrigued by the possibility that some of the short pithy Jesus-sayings were falsely attributed.
It is quite common for people to attribute sayings to figures famous for their pithy wisdom (e.g., Franklin, Lincoln, Churchill). Think of Tevye: “As the good book says, if you spit in the air, it lands in your face.” Sometimes this is a deliberate attempt to give the saying authority, but often it is just people getting confused and associating a pearl of wisdom with a person with a reputation for spreading such pearls. I suspect it is often a bit of both.
If Jesus had enough reputation as a sage and source of such sayings, it is conceivable not only that sayings were falsely attributed to him, but that several people might have independently, falsely attribute common wisdom sayings to him.
When I referenced pithy Jesus sayings I meant Mk 14:18/Mt 26:21/Jn 13:21 and Mt 26:11/Jn 12:8.
Robert my main point about Johannine dependence is that one’s position is going to depend on the assumptions we make going in.
If Jesus had enough reputation as a sage and source of such sayings, it is conceivable not only that sayings were falsely attributed to him, but that several people might have independently, falsely attribute common wisdom sayings to him.
I can imagine somebody hearing a really good saying and thinking it was so good that Jesus must have said it.
Every method employed has methodological assumptions, which are not merely willy-nilly assumptions but based on the considered results of prior, communal study.
Whereas I enjoy a position of absolute objectivity from which I can judge with perfect equanimity both the living and the dead. (I am given to understand I have a special role in the Parousia so treat me right.)
Nothin’ so highfalutin’ Robert.
The assumptions of which I speak are rather specific and functional. It seems to me a case built for dependence must begin with the assumption that John had no other literary or oral sources than the Synoptics. Because if he did how could you ever determine that any similarities (or differences) were not the result of these unknown sources? As I said this is the corner Robyn Faith Walsh paints herself into. She discounts oral sources for the ministry of Paul so the composer of Acts must know Paul’s letters. How else could he have ever known about Paul otherwise? But then how do you explain the fact he gets Paul all wrong and screws up the timeline?
This it seems to me is the danger of positing a single literary tradition. You almost have to assume it’s true before you can demonstrate it’s true. Am I the only one for whom this is an issue?
How could anyone know for sure that John had no other literary or oral sources than the Synoptics? Why would anyone make such an assumption? I do not assume such. (I’m not Robyn Faith Walsh, by the way.) But nor do I think John’s familiarity with the synoptics can be proven deductively. Yet in the judgment of many scholars, given all the the evidence that we do have, it seems more likely than not that that John was at least indirectly familiar with redactional elements of the synoptic gospels. That does not seem like an illogical or otherwise impossible judgment call to make. Do you disagree?
Robert in your responses you seem to assume I’m accusing you of something when all I’m doing is trying to sketch out the questions that occur to me. I’m using Walsh as an example of someone who minimizes oral transmission in favor of a literary line of tradition. Don’t misunderstand, in my view Ehrman is no better off, being someone who minimizes literary tradition in favor of oral tradition.
How could anyone know? Well no one can. That’s precisely my point. Certain assumptions are required to proceed with the discussion and certain implications of these views present themselves. I hope Goodacre and Mendez address these assumptions and implications in their books.
You’re right. In a field with a dearth of new material all we can do is decide what is more or less likely. Interpretation. But as a non-specialist I am also content with admitting we don’t know and we’ll never know.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)