Metacrock invited me to this board and asked me to present this essay I originally posted on a another board. It has several parts to it and this is the first:
From the earliest days of Christianity many have pondered why the Gospel of John (hereafter referred to as "J") is so different from the other three gospels known collectively as the Synoptics (hereafter designated as "S"). Here I will list some of the main differences:
• There is no mention of Jesus’ baptism in J nor his temptation in the wilderness
• Jesus calls his first disciples from among John the Baptist’s followers where John is baptizing and not along the shore of the Sea of Galilee as in S
• J places the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry whereas S places it at the end
• There is very little detail in J concerning Jesus’ ministry in Galilee whereas there is correspondingly very little information about his ministry in Judea in S other than his final days
• There is very little mention of the twelve disciples named in S to be found in J
• The ethical teachings and parables found in S are not found in J
• There is a strong anti-Jewish polemic in J which is absent in S where the conflict is only between Jesus and other Jewish teachers
• Most of the miracles of Jesus recounted in S are absent in J and J presents its own set of miracles not found in S
• The eschatology presented in S is entirely absent in J
• While S has very little in the way of divinity claims for Jesus J is replete with them
• J places great emphasis on faith in Christ as the means of salvation whereas in S the emphasis is more on right behavior as the means of salvation
• In J the Last Supper occurs the night before that mentioned in S. There is no mention of the Eucharist in J’s account and the foot washing mentioned in J is absent in the record of S
• Chapters 13-17 of J record a long monologue of Jesus not found in S
• There is no mention in J of Jesus’ agonizing prayers to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane
• The post resurrection details are very different in J as compares with S
Because of these pronounced differences efforts to harmonize J with S have been severely hampered. Such efforts produce such strange notions as two separate Temple cleansing incidents. Serious students of the Bible should avoid such twisted and tortured use of logic.
Modern critical scholarship has tended toward the view that S should be seen as the most reliable source for reconstructing the historical Jesus and view the material in J with suspicion. In the next section I will discuss some of these views of modern critical scholarship. Later I will propose my own resolution for these conflicts.
The Problem of John and the Synoptics
Moderator:Metacrock
Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
Re: The Problem of John and the Synoptics
naz wrote:Metacrock invited me to this board and asked me to present this essay I originally posted on a another board. It has several parts to it and this is the first:
From the earliest days of Christianity many have pondered why the Gospel of John (hereafter referred to as "J") is so different from the other three gospels known collectively as the Synoptics (hereafter designated as "S"). Here I will list some of the main differences:
• There is no mention of Jesus’ baptism in J nor his temptation in the wilderness
• Jesus calls his first disciples from among John the Baptist’s followers where John is baptizing and not along the shore of the Sea of Galilee as in S
• J places the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry whereas S places it at the end
• There is very little detail in J concerning Jesus’ ministry in Galilee whereas there is correspondingly very little information about his ministry in Judea in S other than his final days
• There is very little mention of the twelve disciples named in S to be found in J
• The ethical teachings and parables found in S are not found in J
• There is a strong anti-Jewish polemic in J which is absent in S where the conflict is only between Jesus and other Jewish teachers
• Most of the miracles of Jesus recounted in S are absent in J and J presents its own set of miracles not found in S
• The eschatology presented in S is entirely absent in J
• While S has very little in the way of divinity claims for Jesus J is replete with them
• J places great emphasis on faith in Christ as the means of salvation whereas in S the emphasis is more on right behavior as the means of salvation
• In J the Last Supper occurs the night before that mentioned in S. There is no mention of the Eucharist in J’s account and the foot washing mentioned in J is absent in the record of S
• Chapters 13-17 of J record a long monologue of Jesus not found in S
• There is no mention in J of Jesus’ agonizing prayers to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane
• The post resurrection details are very different in J as compares with S
Because of these pronounced differences efforts to harmonize J with S have been severely hampered. Such efforts produce such strange notions as two separate Temple cleansing incidents. Serious students of the Bible should avoid such twisted and tortured use of logic.
Modern critical scholarship has tended toward the view that S should be seen as the most reliable source for reconstructing the historical Jesus and view the material in J with suspicion. In the next section I will discuss some of these views of modern critical scholarship. Later I will propose my own resolution for these conflicts.
hey Naz good to see you buddy. thanks for showing up.
I think John is a lot more credible than the people who are referring to do. I think the Koester stuff I spoke of on the carm thread bears that out. The harmonizing shouldn't happen if the pre Mark thing is true, at least not without the understanding of the pre Mark redaction.
Buckingham comes into it becuase he's got good arguments that John had eye witnesses. That means John is the best not the worst.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: The Problem of John and the Synoptics
I am into the Greasbach hypothesis. not that agree with it but they make some good points in not relaying too much on Q.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: The Problem of John and the Synoptics
Yes, Griesbach does make a good case yet most scholars dont agree with it.Metacrock wrote:I am into the Greasbach hypothesis. not that agree with it but they make some good points in not relaying too much on Q.
Re: The Problem of John and the Synoptics
Here I want to present some of the views of modern critical scholarship. I will be quoting from this wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_ ... ty_of_John
According to the majority viewpoint for most of the 20th century, Jesus' teaching in John is largely irreconcilable with that found in the Synoptics, and scholars have chosen the version found in the Synoptics as representing the teaching of the historical Jesus.[93] The teachings of Jesus in John are distinct from those found in the synoptic gospels.[29] Thus, since the 19th century many historical Jesus scholars have argued that only one of the two traditions could be authentic.[94] J. D. G. Dunn comments on historical Jesus scholarship, "Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus' life and ministry in any degree comparable to the synoptics."[10][95] E. P. Sanders concludes that the Gospel of John contains an "advanced theological development, in which meditations of the person and work of Jesus are presented in the first person as if Jesus said them."[96] Sanders points out that the author would regard the gospel as theologically true as revealed spiritually even if its content is not historically accurate[96] and argues that even historically plausible elements in John can hardly be taken as historical evidence, as they may well represent the author's intuition rather than historical recollection.[96] The scholars of the Jesus Seminar identify the historical inferiority of John as foundational to their work.[97] Geza Vermes discounts all the teaching in John when reconstructing his view of "the authentic gospel of Jesus."[98]
While a large number of 20th century biblical critics argue that the teaching found in John does not go back to the historical Jesus, they usually agree that gospel is not entirely without historical value.[99] Several of its independent elements are historically plausible,[100] such as Jesus having been executed before Passover, as John reports.[100][101] Former followers of John the Baptist probably joined Jesus' movement.[100] It has become generally accepted that certain sayings in John are as old or older than their synoptic counterparts, that John's knowledge of things around Jerusalem is often superior to the synoptics, and that his presentation of Jesus' agony in the garden and the prior meeting held by the Jewish authorities are possibly more historically accurate than their synoptic parallels.[102]
Recent discoveries and trends have cast doubt on the certainty that many mid-20th century biblical scholars had about the historical inferiority of John's Gospel. A prominent example is the archaeological discovery of the pool of Siloam in Jerusalem in 2004—a discovery that in a small way undermines much of the criticism leveled at John during the 20th century. Recent evidences such as the pool and a turn away from the vestiges of positivism as evidenced by the growing number of books addressing the historicity of John reveal that the final word has not been said on how much of the historical Jesus inhabits John's gospel.
Throughout the 20th century a minority of prominent scholars, such as John A.T. Robinson, have argued that John is as historically reliable as the synoptics. Robinson wrote that, where the Gospel narrative accounts can be checked for consistency with surviving material evidence, the account in the Gospel of John is commonly the more plausible;[103] that it is generally easier to reconcile the various synoptic accounts within John's narrative framework, than it is to explain John's narrative within the framework of any of the synoptics;[104] and that, where in the Gospel Jesus and his disciples are described as travelling around identifiable locations, the trips in question can always be plausibly followed on the ground,[105] which he says is not the case for any synoptic Gospel. Scholars such as D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Craig Blomberg, often agree with Robinson.[106][107] Henry Wansbrough says: "Gone are the days when it was scholarly orthodoxy to maintain that John was the least reliable of the gospels historically."[108]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_ ... ty_of_John
According to the majority viewpoint for most of the 20th century, Jesus' teaching in John is largely irreconcilable with that found in the Synoptics, and scholars have chosen the version found in the Synoptics as representing the teaching of the historical Jesus.[93] The teachings of Jesus in John are distinct from those found in the synoptic gospels.[29] Thus, since the 19th century many historical Jesus scholars have argued that only one of the two traditions could be authentic.[94] J. D. G. Dunn comments on historical Jesus scholarship, "Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus' life and ministry in any degree comparable to the synoptics."[10][95] E. P. Sanders concludes that the Gospel of John contains an "advanced theological development, in which meditations of the person and work of Jesus are presented in the first person as if Jesus said them."[96] Sanders points out that the author would regard the gospel as theologically true as revealed spiritually even if its content is not historically accurate[96] and argues that even historically plausible elements in John can hardly be taken as historical evidence, as they may well represent the author's intuition rather than historical recollection.[96] The scholars of the Jesus Seminar identify the historical inferiority of John as foundational to their work.[97] Geza Vermes discounts all the teaching in John when reconstructing his view of "the authentic gospel of Jesus."[98]
While a large number of 20th century biblical critics argue that the teaching found in John does not go back to the historical Jesus, they usually agree that gospel is not entirely without historical value.[99] Several of its independent elements are historically plausible,[100] such as Jesus having been executed before Passover, as John reports.[100][101] Former followers of John the Baptist probably joined Jesus' movement.[100] It has become generally accepted that certain sayings in John are as old or older than their synoptic counterparts, that John's knowledge of things around Jerusalem is often superior to the synoptics, and that his presentation of Jesus' agony in the garden and the prior meeting held by the Jewish authorities are possibly more historically accurate than their synoptic parallels.[102]
Recent discoveries and trends have cast doubt on the certainty that many mid-20th century biblical scholars had about the historical inferiority of John's Gospel. A prominent example is the archaeological discovery of the pool of Siloam in Jerusalem in 2004—a discovery that in a small way undermines much of the criticism leveled at John during the 20th century. Recent evidences such as the pool and a turn away from the vestiges of positivism as evidenced by the growing number of books addressing the historicity of John reveal that the final word has not been said on how much of the historical Jesus inhabits John's gospel.
Throughout the 20th century a minority of prominent scholars, such as John A.T. Robinson, have argued that John is as historically reliable as the synoptics. Robinson wrote that, where the Gospel narrative accounts can be checked for consistency with surviving material evidence, the account in the Gospel of John is commonly the more plausible;[103] that it is generally easier to reconcile the various synoptic accounts within John's narrative framework, than it is to explain John's narrative within the framework of any of the synoptics;[104] and that, where in the Gospel Jesus and his disciples are described as travelling around identifiable locations, the trips in question can always be plausibly followed on the ground,[105] which he says is not the case for any synoptic Gospel. Scholars such as D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Craig Blomberg, often agree with Robinson.[106][107] Henry Wansbrough says: "Gone are the days when it was scholarly orthodoxy to maintain that John was the least reliable of the gospels historically."[108]
Re: The Problem of John and the Synoptics
Let me mention briefly here the reason I undertook this quest. I have been for several years now engaged in a monumental project of compiling a harmony of all the words of Jesus recorded in the gospels. Originally my plan was to arrange these thematically but ran into problems assigning categories to the words recorded in J. In J Jesus’ discourses jump around from topic to topic in a more conversational style than that found in S. I think this fact lends further credence to the notion they are the record of one who heard these speeches firsthand.
As a result, my second approach was to try to arrange the material in some chronological fashion. Immediately I ran into problems with this method as well as the chronologies presented in J seemed irreconcilable with those found in S which also somewhat differ from one another. But a few days ago I stumbled on a solution to this where all the pieces seemed to fall into place like parts of a giant jigsaw puzzle. I was able to cross reference certain events which were recorded in all four gospels and use them as temporal place markers from which the other material could be inserted. It became quite apparent to me that what I was seeing were two fairly independent gospel traditions, one focused almost entirely on Jesus’ Galilean ministry (S) and the other (J) almost entirely concerned with only his Judean ministry.
This led me to the conclusion that the author of J was not one of the disciples named in S but an anonymous author. I believe the author of the original version of the fourth gospel is none other than the beloved disciple mentioned in the text itself. This original version underwent redaction in the hands of later editor. This is made clear in the text of J itself in the following passage:
Jhn 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
These are obviously the words of the later compiler/redactor as it clearly refers to “this...disciple” in the third person, “and we know that his testimony is true”.
Thus it is my belief that the original author was not the Apostle John but a Judean disciple who did not accompany Jesus in his Galilean ministry. This explains why almost all of the material found in S is absent in J. The author was simply unaware of the goings on up in the North. Had the author been the Apostle John this would not be the case.
The argument that John is the author and simply omitted details already set down in the other gospels does not hold up under close scrutiny. The majority of modern critical scholarship rejects the notion of dependence of J on any of the other gospels which argues against the author having any knowledge of them. And since details contained in J contradict some of those found in S one would expect some mention of these discrepancies be made in the text of J had the author been knowledgeable of them. Finally as the author is quite familiar with Jesus’ frequent trips to Galilee we might expect to see some mention of a reason for emitting the details of those excursions.
Similarly S seems entirely ignorant of the ministry of Jesus in the South other than the final week leading up to his crucifixion. This suggests that not all, or perhaps none, of the twelve disciples named in S ever accompanied Jesus in these earlier trips to Jerusalem. This is further supported by the absence of those named disciples in the text of J other than the original call and the events of Jesus’ final week. The only other exception being Peter’s words recorded after the miraculous feeding of the multitudes but this was an event which occurred in Galilee and not Judea.
Adding to this is a verse found in J that indicates that at least one of Jesus’ journeys to Jerusalem was conducted in secret:
Jhn 7:10 But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
This may be due to the fact that Jesus was not welcome in Judea and wished to avoid detection and possible arrest. Travelling alone would raise less suspicion than doing so with a band of disciples. It is also possible there were times when the other disciples were off on missionary journeys of their own as the texts of S report.
When in Judea Jesus would have rendezvoused with his Judean disciples such as Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and the beloved disciple who recorded his teachings and deeds there.
The ignorance of the authors of S of Jesus’ other travels to Judea can now be used to explain why they place the cleansing of the Temple as part of Jesus’ final week, and in their minds, his one and only journey to Jerusalem. They were aware of this tradition but simply had no place to insert it other than there. J’s account reflects the actual historical event in its proper temporal setting close to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Quoting from that same wikepedia article: “All three Synoptic accounts explain the reluctance of the Temple authorities to arrest Jesus on the spot, as being due to their fear of popular support for John the Baptist. This would make more sense while the Baptist was still alive.” In addition, a dramatic prophetic act such as this would make sense as punctuating the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry.
As a result, my second approach was to try to arrange the material in some chronological fashion. Immediately I ran into problems with this method as well as the chronologies presented in J seemed irreconcilable with those found in S which also somewhat differ from one another. But a few days ago I stumbled on a solution to this where all the pieces seemed to fall into place like parts of a giant jigsaw puzzle. I was able to cross reference certain events which were recorded in all four gospels and use them as temporal place markers from which the other material could be inserted. It became quite apparent to me that what I was seeing were two fairly independent gospel traditions, one focused almost entirely on Jesus’ Galilean ministry (S) and the other (J) almost entirely concerned with only his Judean ministry.
This led me to the conclusion that the author of J was not one of the disciples named in S but an anonymous author. I believe the author of the original version of the fourth gospel is none other than the beloved disciple mentioned in the text itself. This original version underwent redaction in the hands of later editor. This is made clear in the text of J itself in the following passage:
Jhn 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
These are obviously the words of the later compiler/redactor as it clearly refers to “this...disciple” in the third person, “and we know that his testimony is true”.
Thus it is my belief that the original author was not the Apostle John but a Judean disciple who did not accompany Jesus in his Galilean ministry. This explains why almost all of the material found in S is absent in J. The author was simply unaware of the goings on up in the North. Had the author been the Apostle John this would not be the case.
The argument that John is the author and simply omitted details already set down in the other gospels does not hold up under close scrutiny. The majority of modern critical scholarship rejects the notion of dependence of J on any of the other gospels which argues against the author having any knowledge of them. And since details contained in J contradict some of those found in S one would expect some mention of these discrepancies be made in the text of J had the author been knowledgeable of them. Finally as the author is quite familiar with Jesus’ frequent trips to Galilee we might expect to see some mention of a reason for emitting the details of those excursions.
Similarly S seems entirely ignorant of the ministry of Jesus in the South other than the final week leading up to his crucifixion. This suggests that not all, or perhaps none, of the twelve disciples named in S ever accompanied Jesus in these earlier trips to Jerusalem. This is further supported by the absence of those named disciples in the text of J other than the original call and the events of Jesus’ final week. The only other exception being Peter’s words recorded after the miraculous feeding of the multitudes but this was an event which occurred in Galilee and not Judea.
Adding to this is a verse found in J that indicates that at least one of Jesus’ journeys to Jerusalem was conducted in secret:
Jhn 7:10 But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
This may be due to the fact that Jesus was not welcome in Judea and wished to avoid detection and possible arrest. Travelling alone would raise less suspicion than doing so with a band of disciples. It is also possible there were times when the other disciples were off on missionary journeys of their own as the texts of S report.
When in Judea Jesus would have rendezvoused with his Judean disciples such as Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and the beloved disciple who recorded his teachings and deeds there.
The ignorance of the authors of S of Jesus’ other travels to Judea can now be used to explain why they place the cleansing of the Temple as part of Jesus’ final week, and in their minds, his one and only journey to Jerusalem. They were aware of this tradition but simply had no place to insert it other than there. J’s account reflects the actual historical event in its proper temporal setting close to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Quoting from that same wikepedia article: “All three Synoptic accounts explain the reluctance of the Temple authorities to arrest Jesus on the spot, as being due to their fear of popular support for John the Baptist. This would make more sense while the Baptist was still alive.” In addition, a dramatic prophetic act such as this would make sense as punctuating the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry.
Re: The Problem of John and the Synoptics
Continuing on I will address each of the points of difference I enumerated in the OP:
There is no mention of Jesus’ baptism in J or his temptation in the wilderness
J expresses a high Christology which would not permit these. God incarnate would not need to be baptized nor would he ever be tempted. The Gospel of Matthew also finds Jesus’ baptism problematic and attempts to account for it in another way.
Jesus calls his first disciples from among John the Baptist’s followers where John is baptizing and not along the shore of the Sea of Galilee as in S
At first glance this appears to be an irreconcilable difference. Upon closer inspection there is a means to harmonize the two accounts which I don’t think is too much of a stretch. Let me here quote the two relevant passages:
In any event J indicates that Andrew, another unnamed disciple (possibly the same beloved disciple who authored J?), and possibly Simon Peter were originally followers of John. So wherever it was John was baptizing they would be there.
Now S knows nothing of this earlier call by Jesus and leads us to believe Peter and Andrew were called later in Galilee. An important side note is that Luke never mentions this at all despite it being recorded in Mark upon which Luke partially based his own work. But assuming this happened could it be that Peter and Andrew accompanied Jesus back to Galilee and returned to their usual occupation as fishermen but were later recalled by Jesus to leave that behind and become itinerants? If so it would help to explain why they needed no convincing to do so as they already had a pre-existing relationship with Jesus.
J places the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry whereas S places it at the end
This one was already addressed above
There is very little detail in J concerning Jesus’ ministry in Galilee whereas there is correspondingly very little information about his ministry in Judea in S other than his final days
There is very little mention of the twelve disciples named in S to be found in J
The ethical teachings and parables found in S are not found in J
These issues are also addressed above
There is a strong anti-Jewish polemic in J which is absent in S where the conflict is only between Jesus and other Jewish teachers
First it is important to realize that when we read "Jews" in J what is really meant is "Judeans", and by association their religion, as opposed to Galileans and theirs. Again following my theory this makes perfect sense. It’s highly unlikely that Jesus would have had much contact with the predominantly Judean Pharisees in Galilee. Rather he was preaching to his fellow Galileans who had a slightly different take on religious matters than their Judean half-brethren. They were considered uncouth and uneducated in the finer matters of the Jewish faith by the pure bred inhabitants of Judea. In contrast Jesus came up squarely against the religious establishment during his visits to Jerusalem so a stronger rebuke is recorded there, one which accords with the material found in S recounting Jesus final week. Add to this that the final version of John emerged when the Christian church was severing its already tenuous links with the Jewish faith.
Wrt to the material found in S we do well to remember that Matthew’s gospel attempts to portray Jesus as the teacher of the true Jewish faith, the new Moses with a new Law, and this gospel was favored by the Jewish Christians known as the Nazoreans (Nazarenes) and may even have originated with them in an earlier version. Thus any anti-Jewish teaching of Jesus may have been deliberately omitted from its text. Both Mark and Luke seemed to be aimed at Gentile audiences so the debate over the validity of Judaism would have held little interest for them.
Most of the miracles of Jesus recounted in S are absent in J and J presents its own set of miracles not found in S
Some of this can be accounted for by my theory. The writers of S would not be familiar with miracles performed in Judea and the author of J would likewise not be as familiar with those which occurred in Galilee.
However it must be admitted this does not fully explain the discrepancies. The miracle of turning water to wine is reported by J to have happened in Cana in Galilee yet S has no mention of it. And the raising of Lazarus from the dead is certainly significant enough to have been well known by all Jesus’ followers.
To help explain this some scholars have suggested there was an earlier Signs Gospel incorporated into the text of J by a later redactor. If this is so it might have been that the author of that work was familiar with some of the miracle stories in both Judea and Galilee but not with all of them.
The eschatology presented in S is entirely absent in J
This probably represents a shift in focus of the Johannine Community away from Jewish messianic prophecies as part of a general trend of distancing itself from Judaism itself.
While S has very little in the way of divinity claims for Jesus J is replete with them
It’s difficult to know how much of this originated with Jesus himself and how much was the contribution of the original author of J or even a later redactor. Certainly a lot of the claims are found in the narrative portion of J and as for the words of Jesus himself it is often difficult to determine where those leave off and the narrator resumes his own discourse. There were no quotation marks in ancient Greek. In any event S, as my theory suggests, has little knowledge of Jesus’ remarks to the Judeans and it also possible that the authors of S deliberately suppressed some of Jesus’ divine claims as being too far outside the mainstream of Judaism to report. It is also important to note that some of the material in J would argue against any claim by Jesus to be equal to God himself.
J places great emphasis on faith in Christ as the means of salvation whereas in S the emphasis is more on right behavior as the means of salvation
This can be partially explained by the absence of ethical teaching by Jesus in Judea. He is in constant conflict with the religious establishment there and knows they have no interest in his viewpoints on matter of Law. It may also represent more of the thinking of the Johannine community itself regarding such matters.
In J the Last Supper occurs the night before that mentioned in S. There is no mention of the Eucharist in J’s account and the foot washing mentioned in J is absent in the record of S
J’s account is most likely the more historically accurate. Quoting again from the wiki article:
This makes perfect sense if the author of J was one of those actually present during the Last Supper. In contrast the authors of S give us only sketchy details of this event as none of those writers were actually present.
There is no mention in J of Jesus’ agonizing prayers to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane
Again the high Christology of J would not permit mention of this apparent weakness on Jesus’ part
The post resurrection details are very different in J as compares with S
Not really anything unusual as all the gospel records have some conflict on the details
There is no mention of Jesus’ baptism in J or his temptation in the wilderness
J expresses a high Christology which would not permit these. God incarnate would not need to be baptized nor would he ever be tempted. The Gospel of Matthew also finds Jesus’ baptism problematic and attempts to account for it in another way.
Jesus calls his first disciples from among John the Baptist’s followers where John is baptizing and not along the shore of the Sea of Galilee as in S
At first glance this appears to be an irreconcilable difference. Upon closer inspection there is a means to harmonize the two accounts which I don’t think is too much of a stretch. Let me here quote the two relevant passages:
Compare this with the account found in Mark’s gospel:Again, the next day, John stood with two of his disciples. And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God!" The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus…One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone). (Jn 1:35-42)
Following my theory J knows only of the original call and no further developments in Galilee. The exact geographic location of this event is not given but both Matthew and Mark indicate Jesus came down from Galilee to be baptized by John pointing to a probable Judean location of John’s ministry. This idea is further backed by the mention of many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to be baptized by John (Mt. 3:7) which makes more geographic sense if John was doing his work in Judea. A number of other passages also support a Judean location for John’s ministry.And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men." And immediately they left their nets and followed him. (Mk 1:16-18)
In any event J indicates that Andrew, another unnamed disciple (possibly the same beloved disciple who authored J?), and possibly Simon Peter were originally followers of John. So wherever it was John was baptizing they would be there.
Now S knows nothing of this earlier call by Jesus and leads us to believe Peter and Andrew were called later in Galilee. An important side note is that Luke never mentions this at all despite it being recorded in Mark upon which Luke partially based his own work. But assuming this happened could it be that Peter and Andrew accompanied Jesus back to Galilee and returned to their usual occupation as fishermen but were later recalled by Jesus to leave that behind and become itinerants? If so it would help to explain why they needed no convincing to do so as they already had a pre-existing relationship with Jesus.
J places the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry whereas S places it at the end
This one was already addressed above
There is very little detail in J concerning Jesus’ ministry in Galilee whereas there is correspondingly very little information about his ministry in Judea in S other than his final days
There is very little mention of the twelve disciples named in S to be found in J
The ethical teachings and parables found in S are not found in J
These issues are also addressed above
There is a strong anti-Jewish polemic in J which is absent in S where the conflict is only between Jesus and other Jewish teachers
First it is important to realize that when we read "Jews" in J what is really meant is "Judeans", and by association their religion, as opposed to Galileans and theirs. Again following my theory this makes perfect sense. It’s highly unlikely that Jesus would have had much contact with the predominantly Judean Pharisees in Galilee. Rather he was preaching to his fellow Galileans who had a slightly different take on religious matters than their Judean half-brethren. They were considered uncouth and uneducated in the finer matters of the Jewish faith by the pure bred inhabitants of Judea. In contrast Jesus came up squarely against the religious establishment during his visits to Jerusalem so a stronger rebuke is recorded there, one which accords with the material found in S recounting Jesus final week. Add to this that the final version of John emerged when the Christian church was severing its already tenuous links with the Jewish faith.
Wrt to the material found in S we do well to remember that Matthew’s gospel attempts to portray Jesus as the teacher of the true Jewish faith, the new Moses with a new Law, and this gospel was favored by the Jewish Christians known as the Nazoreans (Nazarenes) and may even have originated with them in an earlier version. Thus any anti-Jewish teaching of Jesus may have been deliberately omitted from its text. Both Mark and Luke seemed to be aimed at Gentile audiences so the debate over the validity of Judaism would have held little interest for them.
Most of the miracles of Jesus recounted in S are absent in J and J presents its own set of miracles not found in S
Some of this can be accounted for by my theory. The writers of S would not be familiar with miracles performed in Judea and the author of J would likewise not be as familiar with those which occurred in Galilee.
However it must be admitted this does not fully explain the discrepancies. The miracle of turning water to wine is reported by J to have happened in Cana in Galilee yet S has no mention of it. And the raising of Lazarus from the dead is certainly significant enough to have been well known by all Jesus’ followers.
To help explain this some scholars have suggested there was an earlier Signs Gospel incorporated into the text of J by a later redactor. If this is so it might have been that the author of that work was familiar with some of the miracle stories in both Judea and Galilee but not with all of them.
The eschatology presented in S is entirely absent in J
This probably represents a shift in focus of the Johannine Community away from Jewish messianic prophecies as part of a general trend of distancing itself from Judaism itself.
While S has very little in the way of divinity claims for Jesus J is replete with them
It’s difficult to know how much of this originated with Jesus himself and how much was the contribution of the original author of J or even a later redactor. Certainly a lot of the claims are found in the narrative portion of J and as for the words of Jesus himself it is often difficult to determine where those leave off and the narrator resumes his own discourse. There were no quotation marks in ancient Greek. In any event S, as my theory suggests, has little knowledge of Jesus’ remarks to the Judeans and it also possible that the authors of S deliberately suppressed some of Jesus’ divine claims as being too far outside the mainstream of Judaism to report. It is also important to note that some of the material in J would argue against any claim by Jesus to be equal to God himself.
J places great emphasis on faith in Christ as the means of salvation whereas in S the emphasis is more on right behavior as the means of salvation
This can be partially explained by the absence of ethical teaching by Jesus in Judea. He is in constant conflict with the religious establishment there and knows they have no interest in his viewpoints on matter of Law. It may also represent more of the thinking of the Johannine community itself regarding such matters.
In J the Last Supper occurs the night before that mentioned in S. There is no mention of the Eucharist in J’s account and the foot washing mentioned in J is absent in the record of S
J’s account is most likely the more historically accurate. Quoting again from the wiki article:
Wrt that last statement the crucifixion on the Day of Preparation, the day the lambs were ritually slaughtered, actually ties into this idea better than a crucifixion on the day following the evening when the Passover meal was eaten. Continuing:In the Jewish calendar, each day runs from sunset to sunset, and hence the Last Supper (on the Thursday evening), and Jesus's crucifixion (on Friday afternoon), both fell on the same day. In John, this day was the 14th of Nisan in the Jewish calendar; that is the day on the afternoon of which the Passover victims were sacrificed in the Temple, which was also known as the Day of Preparation. The Passover meal itself would then have been eaten on the Friday evening (i.e. the next day in Jewish terms), which would also have been a Sabbath. In the Synoptic accounts, the Last Supper is a Passover meal, and so Jesus's trial and crucifixion must have taken place during the night time and following afternoon of the festival itself, the 15th of Nisan. In favour of the Synoptic chronology is that in the earliest Christian traditions relating to the Last Supper in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, there is a clear link between Passion of Jesus, the Last Supper and the Passover lamb.
Chapters 13-17 of J record a long monologue of Jesus not found in SIn favor of John's chronology is the near universal modern scholarly agreement that the Synoptic accounts of a formal trial before the Sanhedrin on a festival day are historically impossible. By contrast, an informal investigation by the High Priest and his cronies (without witnesses being called), as told by John, is both historically possible in an emergency on the day before a festival, and accords with the external evidence from Rabbinic sources that Jesus was put to death on the Day of Preparation for the Passover. Astronomical reconstruction of the Jewish Lunar calendar tends to favor John's chronology, in that the only year during the governorship of Pontius Pilate when the 15th Nisan is calculated as falling on a Wednesday/Thursday was 27 CE, which appears too early as the year of the crucifixion, whereas the 14th of Nisan fell on a Thursday/Friday in both 30 CE and 33 CE.[112]
This makes perfect sense if the author of J was one of those actually present during the Last Supper. In contrast the authors of S give us only sketchy details of this event as none of those writers were actually present.
There is no mention in J of Jesus’ agonizing prayers to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane
Again the high Christology of J would not permit mention of this apparent weakness on Jesus’ part
The post resurrection details are very different in J as compares with S
Not really anything unusual as all the gospel records have some conflict on the details
Re: The Problem of John and the Synoptics
when I wen to Perkins for my MTS degree Bill Farmer was there. I knew him from political things. He was the major supporter of that theory.naz wrote:Yes, Griesbach does make a good case yet most scholars dont agree with it.Metacrock wrote:I am into the Greasbach hypothesis. not that agree with it but they make some good points in not relaying too much on Q.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief