Loading...So far in my discussion of John’s Gospel I have tried to show how different methods of analysis can tell us different things. And so I’ve talked about the literary-historical method, which determines the literary genre of a work and asks how that genre is used in its historical context, and the thematic method, which ignores genre and simply looks for outstanding themes of a work, for example in its opening chapters and in its speeches. Now I move on to a comparative method, to which I will devote two posts. After this I will post on how a redactional method also can be applied to John, and then end this thread with a brand-new method, that I have not yet talked about, explained, or justified – the socio-historical method. So there is still more fun to come. Here is what I say in my textbook about John from a comparative point of view, part one.
*********************************************************
The Gospel of John from a Comparative Perspective
One of the most striking features of the Fourth Gospel is the way in which some of the distinctively Johannine themes stand in such stark contrast with the other early Christian writings that we have examined so far. Even to the casual reader, the Fourth Gospel may seem somewhat different from the other three within the canon. Nowhere in the other Gospels is Jesus said to be the Word of God, or the creator of the universe, or the equal of God, or the one sent from heaven and soon to return. Nowhere else does Jesus claim that to see him is to see the Father, that to hear him is to hear the Father, and that to reject him is to reject the Father.
Exactly how different, then, is the Fourth Gospel from the others? The comparative approach seeks to answer this question.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN WILL YA????
Dr Ehrman: I have noticed that nothing in John appears in the other three gospels. I noticed this 50 years ago when I took an old bible apart. I would be very interested in knowing why this John is so different. If you ever saw the different movies of Jesus you would notice that a lot of the stories are taken from John and still others from MML, making one gigantic gospel story….I think Cecil B DeMills was right. “its about putting asses in seats”.
Well there are *some* thinks in common (three of the miracles; the passion narrative; etc.). But I take your point!
This is a very helpful post. Some of your best writing is on the subject of differences in the Gospels. You write about that subject better than anyone. I guess the author of John must have had access to different oral and written material than the authors of the Synoptics and maybe even lived in a different area.
The redaction and comparative methods seem clear to me. The other three methods seem to overlap with each other quite a bit.
When was John written ?
Usually dated to 90-95 CE.
Haven’t actually had time to read this yet, but I wanted to mention something that may be of interest to people here. A new National Graphic video claims that in the time of Jesus, Galileans actually had differently-shaped skulls than Judeans! Assuming the archaeologists they trust hadn’t made the mistake of generalizing from too small a sample, I think it’s surprising that in an area as small as Roman Palestine, there really was an ethnic difference between people from the two regions. I wonder if the Samaritans had still different skull shapes?
Ai yai yai. National Geographic is really going down hill….
Tee hee – so you don’t think the skull-shapes “discovery” can be taken seriously? Drat – that was the most interesting thing in the video! It also featured stuff like analyzing the skeleton of a Philistine woman, aged about 18, from the time of Delilah – assuming there really was a Delilah – and coming up with a reconstruction of “what Delilah might have looked like.” No pretense, of course, that the skeleton *was* Delilah’s. But hey, people from those eras didn’t look all that different from us, except for most of them being shorter.
Delilah??? Good god….
So I keep peppering you with questions:
I was wondering what you make of the fact that the story about Barabbas is in John as well as the Synoptics? I gather it’s considered unlikely to be historical given that it doesn’t fit what’s known about Pilate or about Roman rule in general (and there’s no record of this Passover tradition anywhere else). However, it seems like it must have been a very early tradition given that it’s multiply attested. Any thoughts on where it might have come from?
Yup, that’s my view: it was an early tradition in wide circulation, but almost certainly not historical. It’s not an accident that “Bar-abbas” literally means “Son of the Father.” According to the story, the Jewish people were given the choice between two potential sons of God — the violent insurrectionist who wanted to take up the sword against the Romans and the peace-loving apocalyptic preacher who trusted God to bring in his kingdom without human interference. For the person(s) who made up the story, the Jewish people chose badly.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!
Prof. Ehrman, I am interested in what was the “logic”, so to speak, for attributing the authorship of the Gospels of John its presumed author. Who was the first Church Father on record that linked John to John? Did he gave a rationale (e.g.: like Papias gave about Matthew and Mark)?
On a related note: I understand there is some controversy wether Justin Martyr accepted the Gospel of John, cold you please say more about it?
Thank You!
Also, is it possible that “the beloved disciple” from the Gospel of John could be referring to Lazarus? He is referred as being loved by Jesus and he appears by name right before the last entry into Jerusalem.
some have thought so, but I’ve always doubted it. (There’d be no need to keep his identity cryptic if it was someone already deep in the plot)
The first is Irenaeus, and he doesn’t give his logic. Maybe I’ll explain what it *could*have been in a post. The problem with Justin is that he doesn’t quote John, except in one place that may be a reflection of tradition rather than a quotatoin. (he doesn’t quote paul either! but probably for other reasons)
The literary/historical methodology of the Gospels was taken to a whole different dimension in the book, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, by Dennis MacDonald.
In Richard Carrier’s review he says of the Gospel of Mark “thoroughly, cleverly, and strategically emulated” stories in Homer and the Old Testament, merging two great cultural classics . . . ” (http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html)
_________________
QUESTION:
Is MIMESIS a plausible framework for the Gospel of John as well?
Yes, I’ve never been persuaded by the Homer thesis with respect to Mark. Dennis McDonald is a very fine scholar, but I just don’t find it convincing. And my sense is that most other specialists don’t either. (Carrier, of course, is not a specialist)