Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5046Synoptic John

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    Jul 13, 2014
      To: Synoptic (GPG)
      On: Synoptic John
      From: Bruce

      Does the list leadership have a position on the von Wahlde reconstruction of
      gJn? I ask because that reconstruction seems to pose the question of how
      relevant that text is to Synoptic discussions.


      If John is simply later than all the Synoptics, as well as different in many
      ways, it can properly be dismissed from a strictly Synoptic discussion, as
      (I believe) has so far been the case.

      But on 1/55 of von Wahlde's 3v 2010 work, we have his timetable for what he
      calls the three editions of John. The first he puts in the late 50's. The
      second coincides with the death of Peter, c64. The Johannine Epistles
      follow, with 1 John coming shortly after 70, and 2 and 3 John at 80, which
      is also the year of "the Death of the Elder." The 3rd edition comes sometime
      in the 90's, at which time "[The] Community bestows title of Beloved
      Disciple upon Elder."

      That is, von Wahlde is proposing for John a pattern like that of Streeter
      and Taylor for proto-Luke, namely, with the unique material coming first,
      and some Synoptic additions coming later. I find the Streeter-Taylor
      proto-Luke to be almost self-refuting, but that's a personal opinion. If
      someone wanted to argue for it on this list, I cannot imagine their being
      ruled out of order.

      What about von Wahlde's proto-John theory? It makes the original John
      precede the usual dates of the Synoptics by 20 to 30 years, and immediately
      makes it the primary document for the life of Jesus and his early followers.
      I should think a question might arise: If John 1ed really *is* earlier than
      Mark, is it possible that Mark is indebted at any point to John 1ed? Or
      Luke? Or Matthew?

      The Synoptics remain distinctive, as of old, but are they *unaffected* by

      If that question did arise, would it be in order for it to arise on this

      Just a question of protocol.


      E Bruce Brooks
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst