Realistically an almost inevitable problem with that format is that the specialists are on the same wavelength and have a huge amount of specialist knowledge that they will assume in speaking to each other. You can imagine a conversation that goes like this:
Person 1: What do you make of ‘s position on this?
Person 2: It was a fun paper, but it seems more like historical fiction than a serious thesis. I mean, he doesn’t even deal with the .
Person 1: Yeah, sure, he hasn’t fully developed–there’s a lot of work to left to flesh it out. But I thought his basic move was pretty clever. It certainly opens up a lot of possibilities.
etc.
You almost need a non-specialist in the conversation so the specialists slow down and spell it all out. But of course then you change the nature of the conversation.
I’ll try to clear my palate in anticipation. It’s been a while since I seriously dived into the gospel of John. I hope Mendez will address textual issues and not simply assume the unity of gospel composition on which his thesis relies. Textual issues were one of the original drivers of the “Johannine Community” idea. From Goodacre I want criteria that would falsify his hypothesis. In interviews I’ve heard examples of instances where John is similar and different than Mark both used to justify a connection. What would he expect to find if it was not the case that John knew Mark?
How do you see textual issues as one of the original drivers of the Johannine Community idea?
I’m not just thinking of chpt 21. Advocates of the “Johannine Community” viewpoint pointed out the messiness of the text. It’s the usual stuff. The hypothetical “signs source”, the problems with the “farewell discourses” in chpts 13 & 14, geography & chronology, internal inconsistencies, multiple Christologies. One explanation for this is that it was written by committee. Father Brown detected four distinct sources. Interestingly a computer analysis of the text done sometime in the 1990s came up with the same conclusion, that the gospel consisted of four distinct sources. Mendez’s viewpoint relies on unity of composition. He may be right. Hope he discusses it.
I’ve heard interviews with advocates of John knowing the synoptics illustrate their view by using examples where John resembles Mark and examples where they claim their is a difference because John modified Mark. If everything proves your point how do you know if you’re wrong? Goodacre seems pretty confident. Once again I just want some acknowledgement of the issue.
If I got to interview these gentlemen these are among the questions I would ask.
Another good discussion between Hugo Mendez and Megan Lewis. Prof Mendez’ book is available. I just haven’t had the time. Bonus points for making it affordable. Great looking cover, a detail from an Eastern Orthodox icon! Prof Mark Goodacre’s book is coming out next month. Looking forward to them both. I haven’t seriously dove into John in years.
heavypeacock871 said
Preview: Bart’s not convinced by Goodacre (no surprise there). The interview is being recorded on Sunday. No idea when it will drop.
So here’s the first 30 minutes of the debate. Unfortunately the full debate will only be available behind the paywall of the Biblical Studies Academy (BSA):
Now that I have successfully acquired copies of the relevant books my immersion into the Gospel of John begins. It’s been years!
** you do not have permission to see this link ** by Hugo Mendez
** you do not have permission to see this link ** by Mark Goodacre
** you do not have permission to see this link ** by James W Barker
The latter work, published earlier this year, has been referenced with approval in interviews by both Profs Mendez and Goodacre so I figured, what the heck, add it to the mix!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert